Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Maryam Namazie Interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maryam Namazie Interview. Show all posts

Maryam Namazie ✒ Fighting religious intolerance is important, as is fighting intolerance against those who have no religion and are being killed for apostasy and blasphemy in countries under Islamic rule.
Photo by Victoria Gugenheim

This year’s World Hijab Day’s theme is Veiling is Strength but it doesn’t take strength to do as you are told. The veiling of women is a religious imposition, often via force and compulsion. How can it be a woman’s ‘choice,’ when it is more often than not, the choice of the husband, father, brother, mullahs, religious states and organisations… There can be no choice in compulsion. This is a play on words to make the hijab palatable and conceal its role in controlling women and girls. Of course, some women will ‘choose’ the hijab, in the same way that some women will ‘choose’ to carry out FGM on their daughters, or ‘choose’ to throw themselves on the burning pyres of their husbands in the practice of suttee. However, the use of the term choice ignores the religious and cultural demands on women to comply (or else) and also the punishment if they don’t. Compliance is not choice.

World Hijab Day activists can promote the hijab all they want, especially when living safely in secular societies, but the reality of the hijab is one of terror, trauma and violence on the one hand, and women’s resistance against it on the other. The Woman, Life, Freedom revolution in Iran has struck a cord with women across the globe for this very reason.

See extended interview here:

Giulia Mengolini: In countries like Iran hijab is compulsory. Women who don’t respect the law are beaten, and sometimes killed, like Mahsa Amini. What does hijab mean for Iranian women?

Maryam Namazie: Where the hijab is compulsory, one can see its real purpose: to control women’s bodies and sexuality. The fact that girls must wear it from the age of six when they start school means that even children are not free from sexualisation and policing. Just recently, an 11 year old whose hijab had slipped off her head at school was beaten by a school official. According to the Hijab and Chastity law in Iran, children from 9-15 years who remove their veil will face a fine and can be banned from leaving the country up to 2 years. For adults, the sentence can be higher including prison sentences, loss of jobs, and even death as in the case of Mahsa Jina Amini.

Giulia Mengolini: Since 2013 World Hijab Day aims to raise awareness about the hijab and break stereotypes associated with Muslim women who choose to wear it. Could it be a choice? What do you think?

Maryam Namazie: This year’s World Hijab Day’s theme is Veiling is Strength but it doesn’t take strength to do as you are told. The veiling of women is a religious imposition, often via force and compulsion. How can it be a woman’s ‘choice,’ when it is more often than not, the choice of the husband, father, brother, mullahs, religious states and organisations… There can be no choice in compulsion. This is a play on words to make the hijab palatable and conceal its role in controlling women and girls. Of course, some women will ‘choose’ the hijab, in the same way that some women will ‘choose’ to carry out FGM on their daughters, or ‘choose’ to throw themselves on the burning pyres of their husbands in the practice of suttee. However, the use of the term choice ignores the religious and cultural demands on women to comply (or else) and also the punishment if they don’t. Compliance is not choice.

Giulia Mengolini: What do you say to those who say that World hijab Day fights religious intolerance?

Maryam Namazie: Fighting religious intolerance is important, as is fighting intolerance against those who have no religion and are being killed for apostasy and blasphemy in countries under Islamic rule. But you cannot fight religious intolerance by normalising misogyny.

Giulia Mengolini: On Tik Tok and Instagram there are more and more Muslim women who say and show they are proud to wear hijab: is it possible to be a feminist and wear hijab?

Maryam Namazie: Those who are proud of wearing the hijab are doing the bidding of the Islamists. This ‘pride’ is very much linked to the rise of religious fundamentalism. The veiling of women has increased since this rise, as has the use of Sharia law, violence against women, Islamic terrorism… The control of women’s bodies is a main pillar of the Islamist project for the right-wing restructuring of societies. Let’s be clear, the hijab is not just a piece of clothing. It’s not a choice, socially speaking. It is a tool to segregate women and girls and impose sex apartheid. This is no different from racial apartheid, except because it’s based on sex, it is acceptable and can be absurdly touted as a source of ‘pride.’

Giulia Mengolini: Medium of repression, but for some women symbol of empowerment: can these concepts coexist?

Maryam Namazie: White pride is also seen as a symbol of ’empowerment’ for some. it doesn’t make it right. That women promote their own oppression also doesn’t make it right. You can only see the veil in a positive light if you think that the bodies of women and girls are the source of chaos in the world and need to be covered and hidden from view. Modesty culture, which the veil promotes, is fundamentally an extension of rape culture. If a woman doesn’t cover herself, then men cannot be blamed for doing as they please. ‘She asked for it,’ is the mantra of this view. World Hijab Day activists can promote the hijab all they want, especially when living safely in secular societies, but the reality of the hijab is one of terror, trauma and violence on the one hand, and women’s resistance against it on the other. The Woman, Life, Freedom revolution in Iran has struck a cord with women across the globe for this very reason.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson 
of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

World Hijab Day Unveiling Is Strength

Maryam Namazie ✒ last month sharing her views on the struggle in Iran against theocracy. 

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson 
of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Maryam Namazie On Iran’s Women’s Revolution

Maryam Namazie ✒ Translation of Interview in Charlie Hebdo.


She fled the Iran of the Mullahs and founded, in Great Britain, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. We caught up with Maryam Namazie at the big gathering of atheists – many of them ex-Muslims – Celebrating Dissent, which she organized in Cologne on August 21-22. A few days after Salman Rushdie’s attack, Namazie says she is more combative and optimistic than ever: this attack is proof that atheists are dangerous for Islamists.

Charlie Hebdo: This event must have a special connotation for you, a few days after the attack on Salman Rushdie?

Maryam Namazie: I would say that there are so many Islamist attacks that each time there is a gathering of this kind it is a singular moment. But of course it has a special meaning after the attack on Salman Rushdie. We know who is responsible; it was Iran that issued this fatwa. With this demonstration, atheists and freethinkers want to show that there is a great resistance movement against the Islamists.

CH: Were you surprised by the attack?

MN: I think anyone who knows Islamism is not surprised. Salman Rushdie is not the first and will not be the last to be threatened by a fatwa. He is known in the West, but there are so many other brave people fighting for freedom of expression who are under threat. During this rally, we will also pay tribute to Soheil Arabi, accused of blasphemy and sentenced to eight years in prison, and now under house arrest.

CH: The Islamists do not seem to be losing ground, are you afraid?

MN: On the contrary, we must remember that this attack means how much the Islamists are afraid of us! They want to silence us, because they know how loud our voices are and how many we are. They are more afraid of us than we are of them. And the reason is that we are dangerous for them: there is a tsunami of atheism in Iran today, especially among the younger generations. Because the vast majority of the Iranian population is young, there will one day be a clash with the fundamentalists. No one understands the need for secularism better than someone who lives in a theocracy. And these young people want secularism. When we look at history, there are always two camps, those who want to submit and those who resist, and who advance society. We are on this side of history. This will be the advent of dissidents.

CH: Are you sufficiently supported by Western countries? What about left-wing parties?

MN: That’s a problem: many western countries support the oppressors, support the Iranian regime, and don’t give a damn about human rights. As for left-wing political parties – I am a communist myself – the fight against religions remains a left-wing fight. There is a part of the left which has become pro-Islamist, it is a betrayal. Yet they do not understand that the Islamists have swept away the workers’ movement. But fortunately, there are also many on the left who continue this anticlerical discourse and defend secularism. Sometimes this focus on the left is a way to attack him. In reality, much support for Islamist movements comes from right-wing governments.

CH: How do you respond to those who accuse you of having the same discourse as the extreme right in your criticism of Islam?

MN: The far right criticizes Islam because it hates immigrants and Muslims. We criticize Islam because we fight for a society in which believers and non-believers can live freely. This fight is not against Muslims, but against fundamentalism. Let’s not forget that the Islamists are on the far right too! Why not fight these two far-rights head-on? It is possible to defend the reception of refugees, the opening of borders, and to denounce fundamentalism.

⏩Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

The Islamists Are Afraid Of Us

Maryam Namazie ✒ Interviewed by Emma Park for The Freethinker.


Maryam Namazie is the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and a founding member of One Law for All. Born in Iran, she moved to the US in 1983 after the revolution of 1979, and to the UK in 2000. She is a tireless campaigner for women’s rights and against both Islamism and racism. In 2005, she was named Secularist of the Year by the National Secular Society. She has received many other awards, including the International Secularism Prize of the Comité Laïcité République in 2016.

Maryam’s uncompromising stance, such as in her topless protests, and her refusal to censor her views, have caused controversy in some quarters. For instance, in 2020, she spoke at Warwick University for a TedX event. Her title was ‘Creativity in Protesting Religious Fundamentalism’. TedX waited a year before publishing a video of her talk, but refused to publish her slides and accompanied the video with a trigger warning.

I met Maryam in the office of the CEMB, King’s Cross, on 23rd February 2022. She spoke to me about the CEMB and its work, the experience of not ‘belonging’ in the UK, and why the radical Left seems to have allied itself with the Islamist movement. Other topics included the Iranian tradition of political protest, the relationship between religious freedom and freedom of speech, and more. Below are extracts from our interview, edited for clarity and concision, with occasional glosses inserted in square brackets.~ Emma Park.

Maryam Namazie In Her Office In King’s Cross.
Photo: Emma Park

EP: Let’s start with the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. How large an operation is it?

MN: It started quite small in the sense that very few people were willing to call themselves ex-Muslims or to come out publicly and do that. The idea behind the organisation was that having people come out publicly normalises it and breaks the taboo, and makes it accessible to all. When there’s all this discrimination and pressure and intimidation, coming out publicly is a way of resisting the status quo and trying to change things.

When we started it [in 2007], people were saying that we were being absurd, there are no ex-Muslims around, and we were trying to get attention. It was hard initially. For example, at our first conference at Conway Hall, there were very few ex-Muslims there, and those that were there were hiding on the balcony, up where they couldn’t be photographed or filmed. People were like, “You’re talking about ex-Muslims – where are they?” Now, fifteen years on, things have changed incredibly in favour of this visibility and presence, and there are many ex-Muslims.

So I would say, yes, we are a small, a relatively new movement. We are not as established as other freethought, atheist, humanist, secularist movements in Europe and Britain, partly because a lot of us are refugees, new migrants, and we don’t have access to the same resources. CEMB is largely a volunteer-run organisation. All our funding comes from individual donors primarily, but people have been hit hard by Covid, so it’s really gone down, to the point where we are not sure we’ll be able to carry on next year. But somehow people are helping every time we’re about to close down. Our costs are quite minimal. It’s the rent, the website, publicity, stipend, and volunteer support and assistance. I’m the only paid person, on £10,000 a year.

EP: Where would you put yourself on the political spectrum?

MN: I’m a communist – so basically as far left as it goes. But not a communist that supports the Soviet Union or China or all of these so-called communist groups out there. I’m on the left spectrum of pro-refugees, pro-open borders, pro-freedom of expression. And also anti-racist and against bigotry against Muslims, or placing collective blame on all Muslims because of the religious right amongst them.

EP: In your view, is bigotry against Muslims a form of racism, or is it analogous to racism?

MN: I think it’s a form of racism. Of course there are all different races of Muslims. We all hear, whenever there is any criticism of ‘bigotry against Muslims’, they all say, well, Muslims are not a race, therefore we can’t be bigoted against Muslims, because there are also white Muslims, and so on. That’s the argument you often hear. But the reality is that it is seen as a brown religion, a black religion, a minority religion, and one that’s alien to Western societies.

EP: What are the CEMB’s biggest achievements over the last fifteen years?

I think the greatest achievement has been to highlight the fact that there are non-believers in the so-called Muslim community. I think that’s an important thing to do, because very often, the Left that supports Islam and sees Islamism as a revolutionary or anti-imperialist force, also sees Muslims as homogenous, and therefore, if you criticise Islam, you’re seen to be attacking an entire community of people. And for the far Right, anyone who is a Muslim is bringing in a foreign ideology into the country, and they’re destroying Western civilisation and that sort of thing. So both Left and Right look at the Muslim community or Muslim society, so-called, as homogenous.

EP: So they’re just generalising?  

MN: Yes, but what happens when you generalise about something is that you recognise those in power as its authentic representatives. Given the fact that we are living in a period of the rise of the [Islamist] religious Right, it’s they who are seen to be representatives and authentic Muslims, and therefore women who don’t wear the veil are viewed as westernised, or self-hating, and the veil is viewed as the authentic dress of those who come from a Muslim background. What the Left does is that it maintains the demands of the religious Right on the population. So the Left says you shouldn’t blaspheme, because it hurts sentiments, even if it’s people from Muslim backgrounds doing it.
So I think that achievement is something that’s quite valuable, and over the long run I think we will recognise it as such: the fact that we have shown that Muslim communities and societies are not homogenous. I think this is key in humanising people and in making them see that any given community or society is not reactionary, or progressive, all at the same time. There are differences of politics and opinions. People can see that in Britain, they can’t see it when it comes to the Muslim community.

EP: How far have the radical Left got into bed with the Islamist religious Right?

MN: This is something that I’ve had to deal with a lot: progressive student unions barring me from speaking, and saying I’m inflammatory and inciting hatred against Muslims. I think it comes from a good place, in general, because it’s the attitude that you want to not tolerate racism where you see it. I think that’s a good thing. But conflating criticism of the Islamic Right with an attack on Muslims in general is very problematic.

And not everything comes from a good place. There is also political self-interest for some of these groups: they are anti-imperialist, and they see Islamism as an anti-imperialist force, and therefore they side with it versus US or UK imperialism.

EP: Is Islamism anti-imperialist?

MN: It is an imperialist force in and of itself. It has eradicated cultures and art, music, dress – it’s destroyed so much in all of the countries that it has gained access to and power over. The Left that supports it doesn’t see that it’s a counter-revolutionary force. It has eradicated Left and working-class movements in those societies.

EP: How did the Iranian revolution of 1979 affect you?

MN: I was born in 1966. When the Islamic regime was established in 1980 after the revolution, we left the country. We didn’t all leave together, because we couldn’t. My mum brought me to India to go to school, because they shut the schools down in Iran, and then my dad told her not to come back, so we stayed, and then my dad joined us later. We came to the UK in 1982, but we weren’t allowed to stay here, so we went to the US in 1983. I came back to the UK in 2000. My family is still in the US.

EP: What made you move to the UK?

MN: To be closer to Iran and my political party, which used to be the Worker-Communist Party. I left it a few years ago. Basically, I just got fed up.

EP: Are you affiliated to any political party now?

MN: No.

EP: What was it like growing up in Iran before the revolution?

MN: The Shah’s regime was a dictatorship, and the revolution was against this. There was a period when there was a lot of freedom, before the Islamic regime took complete power, which it did by massacring lots of people. I went to a mixed school, I wasn’t veiled, my family’s quite secular. Religion wasn’t really an issue for me. We didn’t fast during Ramadan. Some people in our family did, some didn’t. My grandmother sometimes wore the veil, sometimes didn’t. The first time I came across in-your-face religion was when the Islamic regime took over.

EP: Did you grow up as a believing Muslim?

MN: I was born a Muslim, the way people are out of no choice of their own, because of where you’re born. My father had a very strict Muslim upbringing. He still doesn’t eat pork, drink or gamble, and my grandfather was a cleric. My last name, Namazie, means ‘prayer’. But my father never required us to pray, to wear the veil, so I never felt that I was less because I was a girl. It’s also my family’s background. My mum is from Nepal. She was Christian, and she converted to Islam to marry my dad. All of my aunts and uncles from Iran, they’ve married Indians, Iranians, different types of people, so we’ve got quite a mixed family. Some prayed, some didn’t. I think it was like that in quite a lot of countries in the Middle East at that time. It was much more relaxed, and now it’s much more forced. Before, you could eat in front of someone who was fasting. Now, out of respect, you’re not supposed to. What happens with the religious Right is that it changes the demarcation line, makes it stricter and more difficult for people to pick and choose as they want.

EP: Would you be able to go back to Iran now?

No. I’ve had threats from the Iranian government, and also – it’s a long story. There is the possibility of being kidnapped. [Compare the alleged plot against the Iranian-born journalist Masih Alinejad.]

EP: In terms of your identity, how do you see yourself?

MN: I always believe that you are from where you live and that home is where you work and struggle. But the older I get, the more I miss Iran. It’s very strange, I can’t explain it – it’s very nostalgic and emotional.

EP: How did you become an ex-Muslim?

MN: I became an atheist many years ago, I don’t remember exactly when. It was gradual, for sure. By university I was an atheist. I never called myself ex-Muslim, I don’t even like the term. It’s just an idea that came up about being able to promote the idea that there is freethought and freethinkers amongst Muslims.

EP: How many people would you estimate are ex-Muslims around the world?

MN: We don’t really know the scale of it, but I do think that every family has an ex-Muslim. I think it’s much stronger where Islam is in power. You don’t see it as much because of the lack of freedom to express yourself. But if people said in the UK what they say in Iran about Islam, it would be considered very Islamophobic. One of the trending hashtags in Iran is #IShitOnIslam. Imagine having that here – it would be considered so inappropriate. That rage… You can see even from the response of government officials. The Egyptian government set up a partnership with the Ministry of Youth and Sports to combat atheism. Saudi Arabia considers atheism a form of terrorism. When Deeyah Khan did her documentary about us [Exposure: Islam’s Non-Believers, 2016], there were texts being sent to Muslims in Britain, warning them not to let their children see the film. Atheism is a real threat to these states.
Wall Above Maryam’s Desk In Her Office. Photo: Emma Park

EP: How connected are the different Islamist movements in different countries around the world, including the UK?

MN: They have their rivalries. There are some who are more supportive of Assad and the Islamic regime, or pro-Saudi, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are divisions, in the same way that you have far Right groups in the West that have differences of opinion and divisions. But they are one movement, because despite the differences, they fundamentally want very much the same thing.

EP: What do they want?

MN: They are nostalgic for some golden age of Islam. They want a Caliphate and sharia law, they want the ideal Islamic state as was the case when Mohammed was alive. What that means to them is the idea that doubt and freethought cannot be allowed. Women need to know their place in society. In Britain, they will say, we’re not for the execution of apostates, but they are for it in an ideal Islamic state. There’s a lot of doublespeak and propaganda to dupe people into thinking that they’re the nice version in Britain.

EP: How strong is the Islamist movement in Britain today?

MN: Britain is one of its strongholds. In a country where they’re not in state power, Britain is one of those countries where they are well-established. If we look at Islamists who have got access to positions of power in the UK, and if you look at the whole idea of sharia law, how we have so many sharia courts in this country, and despite various Parliamentary groups looking into this issue, there has never been a decision made on it. The government is always justifying it as people’s choice of religion, whereas it’s something very different and very sinister – it’s part of the political wing of the Islamist movement.

EP: Roughly how many sharia courts are there in the UK at present?

MN: There’s no set number, because they’re not registered. Not that I think they should be registered – it would be like registering FGM clinics. In some reports there have been up to a hundred. A lot of them are ad hoc, in mosques. It’s not like a registered court, where you would know the exact number. Sharia courts were only established in this country in the mid-80s. It goes back to our argument that it’s part of the religious Right movement. There were Muslims before in this country, none of them needed to go to sharia courts, they did not have to go.

EP: Not being a Muslim in terms of your religious beliefs, how do you see your Iranian side?

MN: For me, it’s the protest and the resistance. That makes me proudest to be Iranian. I think it’s a continuation of the original Iranian revolution, that was never allowed to achieve its goals. Look at the French revolution. It happened so long ago, but we still feel the effects of it today, when we talk about laïcité, or secularism in the proper sense, not in the wishy-washy British sense. So I think the revolution and its politicisation of society in Iran, to the extent that a majority of people were born under an Islamic regime, and are fighting it tooth and nail. I see that as a really proud history, and one that I am a part of.

EP: Do you have any favourite Iranian authors?

MN: I’m going to sound like a party hack, I’m not in the Worker Communist Party any more, but – the leader of that, Mansoor Hekmat, I became a communist because of him. I find his writing so human, and seeing the world in such a fundamental way. But there are also many great poets in Iran. There’s Ahmad Shamlou, who was very critical of the state, or a woman poet, Forough Farrokhzad, who was such a taboo-breaker.

EP: Is there a long history in Iran of criticising the state?

MN: Yes, definitely. And also a history of freethought. There is Sadegh Hedayat, he’s a well-known writer who is an atheist, very critical of religion. Also there’s a very funny character, it’s called Molla Nasreddin, which is famous in Iran, but also in Azerbaijan and other countries, and it’s a bumbling clergyman – all the cartoons are making fun of religion and religious rule. For example, he’s following a group of donkeys and they’re going to Mecca, that sort of anti-clericalism, like in Charlie Hebdo.

EP: Talking of Charlie Hebdo and laïcité, you mentioned that British secularism seems ‘wishy-washy’ by comparison to the French version. Would you be in favour of a more French approach over here?

MN: I think that’s the only approach. Not to say that I am completely supportive of the French government, I don’t think it is completely promoting laïcité, I think there’s a lot of politics as well involved. But the idea of the state being incompetent, where it has no position on religion, it’s separate completely, is hugely important. It’s not enough to be neutral.

EP: The idea that the state should not have any influence on politics?

MN: Any influence, but also on the educational system, in public policy. Faith schools, for example, are not good for children.

EP: Why should religion not have any influence on education or public policy?

MN: Faith and education seem to be antithetical to each other. Education should promote freethought, doubt, questioning. Faith is the opposite of that. Is it the role of an educational system, to teach people to be submissive, or to learn about dogma? I think not. Also religion shouldn’t have a place, for example, in a court of law or when making public policy. Why should there be faith-based health services? We all bleed the same. It’s just a way of helping to bring the religious right more into the public space, whereas it shouldn’t really have any space. That’s different from being neutral. A state should be playing an active role in combating religion. Yes, you have the right to your religion, but that’s very different from having a right to a religious school, or a right to faith-based services. Those are separate things.

EP: So, in your view, religious freedom should have certain limits?

MN: Yes, because religion is a private matter. That’s where there’s a problem, that for some reason, it’s as if religious freedom means you can shove your religion down everybody’s throat. You may have the freedom to believe in what you want, but when it comes to the public space, it’s not about a personal right any more, it’s about a right that imposes on society. If we recognise it as a private belief, it becomes a lot easier to manage it.

EP: Talking about Charlie Hebdo: how important are laughter and satire in promoting free speech?

MN: Charlie Hebdo is really important not just for French society but for all of us. I spoke at the third anniversary of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I was the only English speaker there, because you know how it’s been over here in supporting them: if there have been any media reports on the attacks, they don’t show the cartoons, they don’t show any of the images – that’s the whole point, isn’t it? They [Charlie Hebdo] have been left alone to a large extent, because it is that same idea that criticising Islam is detrimental to Muslims. The argument I made was that what Charlie Hebdo does is important for freethinkers from Muslim backgrounds, because it’s opening the space up for us as well. It means a lot to Islam’s non-believers, as well as its benefits for free speech in European countries.

EP: What is the best way in Britain of countering Islamist fundamentalism, while at the same time not promoting anti-Muslim bigotry?

MN: Islamism is part of UK foreign and domestic policy. How can you have relations with the Saudi government, or with the Pakistani or Iranian government, and then address Islamism in your own country? It’s impossible, because in order to justify your relationship with those countries, you’ve justified Islamism, so it makes it easier for it to grow roots here as well.

At the same time, the idea that we foreigners are never British citizens… The jihadi bride, Shamima Begum – the fact that her citizenship can be taken away says a lot about how this government views the ‘other’ and minorities. Even if you are born here, because your parents happen to be from Bangladesh you’re never part of this country. This idea is that you belong to the Muslim umma [the worldwide Muslim community] – the Muslim community, a Muslim country, you’re never really British. It gives people the feeling that they don’t belong, and also, the government itself is saying ‘You don’t belong’ with this policy.

EP: Since being in the UK, have you experienced racism yourself?

MN: Yes. The first time I experienced it was when we left India in 1982. We went to Bournemouth, because my dad knew someone there. We were walking down the street, and some lady was saying something, and my mum was waving to her, she thought she was just saying hello, and she was like, “You fucking foreigners, get out of this country!” So that was the first time. Since 2000, it’s, you know, the looks you get if you’re talking in another language – on the train, for example. It’s constantly being told, if you disagree with anything the UK government says, “Why don’t you just go home?” You never belong.

Since I’ve got a son now, my idea was always, “You’re British, you were born here, you’re not Iranian.” This was always my propaganda to him. Then he’s grown up, and he’s faced so much racism at school [in London]. I feel very sorry for him, because it affects him quite a lot. I guess you then feel like, who are you? You don’t belong anywhere. I can see why people feel so disillusioned, that they’re not part of British society.

EP:  Have you had women in stricter Muslim communities telling you of some of the problems they have had, or what it’s like being in that very repressive sort of environment in the UK?

MN: In the work I do with One Law for All, we have been talking to lots of women, gathering testimonies. We did quite a bit of that for the Parliamentary Committee that was going to be looking into sharia courts, that never did. [See Parliamentary discussion in May 2019.] It was before lockdown. We gathered testimonies, and I provided evidence to the Committee, and we did written submissions. In those situations, there are women who talk about the awful things that have happened to them in the sharia courts. People say, “The sharia courts are not stoning anyone to death, they’re not amputating them, they’re just dealing with marriage and divorce and child custody.” But those are pillars of women’s oppression in the family. So it trivialises what happens to women.

EP: Is it difficult for these women to integrate with other British people, non-Muslims, or into wider society?

MN: It is difficult, partly because some of the problems include the fact that men may have only married women in a nikah (an Islamic marriage), and so when there’s violence or divorce, the women don’t have any rights, because it was never a proper marriage – they were led to believe that it was. Plus if you’re looking at relationships where there’s coercion and violence, women are also kept very isolated. They may not even be able to speak the language, or have many friends outside, who the husband has given them permission to have relationships with. We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. They’re not protected and they’ve been left at the mercy of these sort of kangaroo courts.

EP: What’s the attitude of the Left?

MN: I think they think it’s people’s right to religion. But again, the counter-argument is, religion is a private matter.

We’ve talked of the way that racism and criticism of religion may be associated in some people’s minds. Is one of the problems with the approach of the Left that they’re so worried about racism that they are not able to tackle these issues of abuse within Muslim communities?

MN: It’s not all the Left. Practically everyone I work with is on the Left. A lot of ex-Muslim groups are also Left-leaning, though there are other groups too – and a lot of the women’s groups I work with are Left-leaning. A lot of the protest movements that we’re seeing in Iran or Afghanistan, they are Left-leaning as well. There is a very vibrant Left that is opposed to both fundamentalism and racism.
But there is that section of the Left that hides behind the idea of racism and bigotry, as a way of saying, we’re so concerned about racism, we’re going to support sharia courts and so on. But they’re not very concerned with the racism that ex-Muslims face, for example. If freethinkers are killed, suddenly they’re not so vocal about human rights. They see Islamism as a revolutionary and anti-imperialist force. It’s an uncomfortable ally, but one that they want.

EP: Where does the CEMB fit in with other freethought movements in the UK?

MN: With the National Secular Society we have very good relations. They are also seen to be a bit more upfront with this criticism of religion. Most of our relationships in the UK are with minority and women’s groups, such as Southall Black Sisters, or Centre for Secular Space, or Iranian and Kurdish women’s rights organisations. I can’t think of any freethought groups we work with. I think we are seen to be a bit much, in the sense of going too far. But I think you need to go too far, especially with what they’re doing [in Islamism] – for goodness’ sake, they’re decapitating people.

EP: Topless protests: why?

MN: Topless protest is the most difficult thing I have ever done. The first time I did it, I didn’t get my period for six months, that’s how stressed I felt. I still feel really embarrassed when my parents come and see pictures of it. The reason I did it is because Aliaa Magda Elmahdy in Egypt did it in 2012. She was under a lot of attacks and pressure, and I said, “Let’s do something in support of her, let’s do a topless calendar.” And of course, suggesting it, I had to do it myself. The idea is that a woman’s body is considered to be the source of chaos and fitna [‘Islam. Unrest or rebellion, esp. against a rightful ruler,’ S.O.E.D.], that’s why we have to be veiled. Therefore owning your body and using it as a tool for protest and liberation is really a great way of challenging this view that a woman’s body is obscene and shouldn’t be seen and heard.

EP: Final question: what limits should be set to free speech in the law?

MN: I don’t think there should be any limits. Hate speech is really subjective. A lot of what I say is considered hate speech. Even saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen, let people say that ridiculous, absurd thing, and let others be able to challenge it. The best way to combat bad speech is with good speech. You have to have the freedom to be able to listen to various views and to be able to challenge them. We’re living in an age where speech is considered akin to causing physical harm. We need to push for a period where you could say anything, you could have very challenging conversations with one another, and manage to still be friends, families, and move on with your life without getting your head chopped off.

Of course there’s a difference between hate speech and inciting violence. That’s where we should be drawing the line. But otherwise, I think we should let people talk. And it would be good for people to learn to listen as well. You don’t have to agree with everything you hear – that’s fine. This whole thing of safe spaces, of things being so harmful that you can’t say it anywhere, is problematic for society. It feeds into this idea that that’s why they have to cut your head off, because you’ve upset them so much. I’m upset by a lot of things I hear, but nobody would say I have a right to go and attack someone physically.

⏩Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

‘The Best Way To Combat Bad Speech Is With Good Speech’

Maryam Namazie ✒ talks early life, Iran, human rights, sexuality, women and more.



Keep Up With Maryam Namazie. 


Why I'm Not A Muslim

In a vibrant interview, Iranian feminist Maryam Namazie ✒ calls on the left to see the real nature of Islamists: a far-right political force.


Born in Tehran, Maryam Namazie left Iran after the advent of the Islamic Republic in 1979. This left-wing, feminist, human rights and refugee activist, founded the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain in 2007, a movement that continues to expand. For years, she has deplored that part of the left does not manage to consider Islamism other than as a local symptom of discrimination, racism or “Islamophobia ” (a term it abhors), while it is a planetary “scourge” and an extreme right-wing ideology. In a major interview given to the Express after the Conflans attacks and Nice, Maryam Namazie castigates the coverage of events by certain Anglo-Saxon media and explains that we must above all not start looking for justifications – such as French secularism or “offensive” caricatures – for an Islamist terror which, far from to be satisfied with striking a secular country like ours, makes every year thousands of Muslims victims in the world.

Interview by Thomas Mahler in L’Express

31.10.20

TM: After this new attack in Nice (and another attempt in Avignon, with a man shot by the police), France seems to be at the forefront against jihadism. Do you understand why?

MN: There is a tendency to discuss the heinous terrorist attacks in France as an attack on French values, or a response to “Islamophobia,” the “insulting” of Muslim sensibilities, social exclusion and/or a colonial past. Fundamentally, in my view, it is none of these.

If we look at the scourge of Islamist terrorism globally, the majority of attacks (with many more foiled) take place in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Just this year, thousands have been killed or wounded in educational centres, farming villages, hotels, temples, maternity wards, mosques, government buildings, marketplaces, on buses and in cars in Afghanistan, Chad, Iraq, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Syria… Just this week, in Bangladesh, a man accused of “disrespecting” the Quran was lynched and his body set on fire. The annual statistics of the dead don’t even consider those killed legally by Islamist governments – such as Iran or Saudi Arabia – in what should be considered acts of terror against the population at large. November, for example, will be the anniversary of the 2019 protests in Iran where up to 1,500 protestors were killed by the Iranian regime with others currently facing long-term imprisonment or languishing on death row.

In all these global terrorist attacks, there is hardly a cartoon of Mohammad in sight nor do pundits line up to excuse the killings as a response to social exclusion, military intervention or hurt sensibilities and offence. What this shows is that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are an excuse for acts of both random and targeted assassinations, executions and terrorism. What some don’t see or choose not to see is that the excuse is not the cause of terrorism. The excuse is there to shift blame on the victims and to justify the unjustifiable.

When we look at Islamist terrorism worldwide, most of those killed are Muslims or presumed to be Muslim due to a lottery of birth, hence why those of us from those regions can clearly see Islamism for what it is: a far-Right political force with state power in many contexts.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to instil fear for a political aim with violence as an end to itself. The Islamist aim – like the aim of all religious-Right movements – is to deny individual freedoms and choices, quash dissent and impose their political project and rule.

As the Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas says: 

In many ways, we are privileged, those of us coming from so-called Muslim countries: we are spared the justification of the Muslim extreme right’s crimes through racism… Religion is the cover up for extreme right political forces; like Nazis with the Aryan ‘race’, the Muslim extreme right believes they belong to the upper religion in the world; like Italian fascists invoking the Glorious Past of Rome, they justify their self-proclaimed highest status with reference to a mythicised past: the Golden Age of Islam. Like fascists and Nazis, they believe this superiority grants them the right and the duty to physically eliminate the untermensch (the sub-humans), which, strangely enough – seem quite similar, from WWII to now: Jews and other ‘inferior races’, communists, etc… to which our home brand of fascists and Nazis add the Kofrs. Among many other similarities, they all assign women to their place: the kitchen, the cradle and the Church/in our case, the mosque.

More than an attack on French or more accurately universal values, Islamist terrorist attacks are integral to a defence of their values – hate, violence, supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, totalitarianism… Values that are at odds with 21st century humanity, including a large section of the believing population – hence their need to impose their project with brute force.

Having said that, it must be noted that even if cartoons are an excuse, defending Charlie Hebdo and the right to mock and criticise religion is a task of every secularist today. When Charlie Hebdo draws Mohammed, and stands firm in its right to do so, it gives those of us battling apostasy and blasphemy laws in today’s Islamic states much needed support and strength.

Also, when Hezbollah’s Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah calls the cartoons an “aggression” and the Macron administration’s stance for free expression a declaration of “war,” when former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past” or Pakistani cleric Khadim Rizvi calls for nuking France, then no one can remain on the side-lines.

The stand to take is certainly not like that of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who says that “freedom of expression is not without limits.” Rather the stance to take – a simple one really – is that the aggression and provocation, the crux of the problem, is not free expression but murder.

TM: On a political level, Erdogan called Macron “a fascist”, while Imran Khan explained that the French president “has chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, including his own citizens”. How do you explain that these Muslim leaders seem to be more angered by cartoons than for instance about by the tragic situation of Uighurs in China?

MN: The reason Erdogan, Khamenei or Imran Khan are more interested in cartoons than the situation of Uighurs in China or “Muslims” being killed by their own regimes is because “Islamophobia” and the offence industry are seen to be justifiable reasons for murder by too many and it helps them whip up hysteria for their own hateful cause.

They have no real interest in defending the rights of Muslims unless it allows them to justify their rule and maintain power.

TM: The English-speaking medias often criticize the French model of “laïcité”, or secularism, presenting Macron’s decisions after Samuel Paty’s death as a “crackdown on Islam”. American or English journalists seem also to have difficulties to use the term “Islamist” after the beheading of a French teacher…

MN: The Islamist narrative has become mainstream, which is why a number of English-speaking media frame the terrorist attacks as the Islamists do. Watching journalists regurgitate Islamist propaganda by explaining how they were “provoked” to kill – as if the real provocation isn’t murder – is like watching Fox News selling Trump. They have already bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Facts and evidence are irrelevant to them.

According to Islamist (and also ironically other far-Right) propaganda, regurgitated by lazy and cowardly “journalism,” there are no distinctions between Islam, Islamism and Muslims. If that were the case, how can it be that the vast majority of victims are in fact Muslims or those presumed to be Muslim? This conflation is crucial for the advancement of the religious-Right and its efforts to silence criticism and dissent but how can this make sense to anyone with half a brain? Is there no difference between Christianity, the Christian-Right and Christians? Do all Christians think alike? Is everyone in the US or Britain Christian for that matter? Do they all agree with Farage or Trump? Is criticism of Trump or the Christian-Right an attack on Christians or white people? Replace these with Islam, Islamism and Muslims, though, and suddenly these “journalists” become incapable of critical thought.

Obviously, targeting Islamism is not the same as targeting Islam. Having said that, the right to criticise and mock Islam and the sacred is an important right. If the right to religion is an aspect of freedom of conscience, so is the right to be free from religion and to doubt and question and even mock. This criticism is particularly crucial for those of us who are Islam’s non-believers.

Islam is a belief like any other and has to be open to criticism, particularly because it plays a role in the bleak situation that we find ourselves. In the same way that Catholicism and the church cannot avoid being challenged by women fighting for the right to abortion in Poland.

On the issue of Laicite, I should just add that Britain is not a secular state by any means given its established Church of England, bishops in the House of Lords and prayers in parliament. It is a secular society despite the established church but this link between the state and church goes a long way to explain why British “secularism” is all about equality of religions and not separation between church and state. This is also the reason why we cannot get anywhere in our challenge of Sharia courts here in the UK. It is because of the implications for the Church and why successive British governments continue to promote a policy of religious communalism at the expense of individual rights and equality. Anything to save the Church’s position in society.

TM: What should we say to Muslims who think that cartoons of the prophet Mohammad offend their faith and their identity?

MN: That some Muslims are offended by cartoons is irrelevant in my opinion. We are all offended at one point or another. I am offended by the Quran and by religions’ views on women, LGBT and apostates but my offence does not give me a license to ban Islam and religion or decapitate, threaten and murder. In fact, unrelenting violence, decapitations, suicide bombs, hostage taking, executions, terror are primarily the remit of the religious-Right and should be treated as such. They are not the actions of ordinary believers, however reactionary. Framing it as Muslim offence is part of the problem and normalises the Islamist narrative. It is like asking “what shall we say to Christians whose faith and identity have been offended” right after an abortion clinic has been firebombed in the US or young people massacred on the Norwegian island of Utoya. Offence is not a defence, especially for murder.

TM: The left in France is profoundly divided about Islamism and djihadism. Some still think that the roots of Islamism are mainly social, because France is discriminating people of Muslim culture with “Islamophobic” policies. How do you explain that progressives here in Western countries can be on the same side than the worst religious reactionaries?

MN: If that is true, then white nationalism in the US, Marine Le Pen in France or the Golden Dawn in Greece are the result of social policies that discriminate against white people or Christians. Identity politics is also being used by white nationalists to justify their burning down of asylum centres and murdering labour MPs.

Coming from the Iranian Left, I find it infuriating that some in the European Left can only envision the Islamist far-Right as a vehicle for “resistance.” Do they equally consider those joining neo-Nazi groups in Europe as a justifiable response to unemployment, disenfranchisement or disillusionment? Do they think, progressive organising in trade unions and labour organisations and feminist or secular movements are not for us minorities? It’s paternalistic and racist to think that we can only be fascists when faced with bigotry, social inequality or imperialism. How racist to assume that when it comes to us – sheer violence, terror and homicide are the only forms of “protest.”

It is obscene how this section of the Left has forsaken its anti-clerical and revolutionary traditions to defend Islamism and reaction at the expense of class politics and progressive secular political and social movements.

Another point needs to be made here. There is racism in France and Europe as there is in Iran and Sudan and… Racism is integral to profit-making as is religion. However, you cannot stop racism by banning blasphemy. We have to fight blasphemy laws and racism. We have to fight the far-Right, including the Islamists. We have to defend freedom of religion and atheism. Most importantly, we have to defend Laicite everywhere. Our rights and lives depend on it.

TM: The former French Prime Minister François Fillon claimed that “there are problems with Islam, and not with the other religions”. Do you share his views, or should we perhaps not forget what is happening in Poland for instance?

MN: There are serious problems with Islam – the main problem being that it isn’t a private affair. If it were– then to each their own. But I wouldn’t agree that it is only a problem with Islam. France’s 1905 law separating religion from the state, after all, was in response to Christianity’s role in the public space. It had nothing to do with Islam. Also, today, we see how other religions are used to perpetrate human rights violations and terrorism. See the Buddhist-Right’s attacks on the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar or the Hindu-Right’s attack on Muslims in India or the Jewish-Right’s assault on the Palestinians as evidence of this in the here and now. Poland and the US are examples of what happens when the Christian-Right gain power. Depending on the degree of political power, that is the degree to which they deny rights and silence dissent. And they always come for women, LGBT, and minorities first. This has been our experience with Islamism over many decades – from Algeria to Iran.

TM: In France, some people at the right think that immigration and Islamism are the same topics, and the see "Muslims” as a monolithic group. What is your answer to that?

MN: I think it is a huge mistake to link immigration and Islamism. There is a bigotry behind the need to link the two. No one links white nationalism to citizenship rights because no matter what heinous crimes are committed, the white nationalists are seen to be part of the society they live in and are prosecuted for their crimes in that society. As they should be.

That immigration is an issue when it comes to Islamism shows how those from more recent migrant backgrounds are never seen to belong. Jail is the option for Breivik in Norway, yet it can be deportation or loss of citizenship rights for someone from a Muslim background even if they were born in Europe.

Linking Islamism’s crimes with immigration places collective blame for the acts of individuals. We don’t blame all Christians for Brevik’s killing spree; why would we think that blaming immigrants or Muslims for the crimes of Islamists is acceptable?

The important point about the terrorists who heinously killed Samuel Paty or 3 others in a church in Nice is not that they were Chechen or Tunisian or newly arrived refugees but that they were Islamists. Full stop. Recognising their allegiance to the Islamic far-Right helps us target the political movement. At the same time, we must continue to defend Laicite, the right to freedom of conscience and expression, equality of all citizens, and uncompromisingly oppose racism.

TM: In a long term, are you optimistic?

MN: In the long-term, I am cautiously optimistic because I believe that Islamism is being challenged by secular, modern, women-led, left-leaning movements in Iran, the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Rojava, a secular feminist centre in the middle of a war zone is testament to what can be. But for our movements to succeed, they must have the support and solidarity of good people everywhere. Unfortunately, too many still, are more concerned with defending Islamism and death rather than defending its victims and dissenters and life. So we shall see who will win in the end. I am banking on us.

The above is the English version of an extended interview published in L’Express magazine on 1 November 2020. You can see the full interview in French here.

The English was published on Secularism is a Women’s Issue.

Keep Up With Maryam Namazie. 

The Right To Criticize Islam Is Crucial For Us Atheists Of Muslim Culture

Souwie interviews the secular activist Maryam Namazie. 

I met Maryam Namazie at the Celebrating Dissent festival in Amsterdam recently. As co-organiser of this unique gathering, it soon became clear that Maryam was seen by many of the participants as something of a mentor, even a mother figure. A veteran campaigner for human, especially women’s rights, Maryam, now 53, speaks with the eloquence and quiet confidence that comes with years of sustained activism on issues ranging from Islamophobia, to blasphemy, misogyny and sex apartheid. Maryam’s well-modulated voice and pleasant demeanour, belie a tireless determination to protect and advance the rights of others.

Born into a largely secular family in Tehran, her family were forced to flee the country in 1980 when Maryam was just thirteen. In the wake of the Iranian Revolution (1979), she and her mother had left Iran for India, where Maryam was to attend school. Namazie’s mother was set to return to her husband and younger daughter in Iran when word came from her husband to stay in India with Maryam. Some months later they were joined in India by her father and younger sister. ‘It was not supposed to be final. So that’s what’s heart-breaking for me’ Maryam explains. ‘At the time, I didn’t think I would never go back, never say good-bye to my friends, my grandmother, never see my home again…’. 

Maryam and her family were not allowed to stay in India, so they went to Britain where they remained for a year before having to leave again. Finally, they travelled to the US where two of Maryam’s uncles had already settled. Although their passports were confiscated upon arrival in the country, seventeen year old Maryam and her family managed to stay there. This is where she completed her education and began her work as an activist.

‘The future revolution of Iran is clearly a female one’ – Namazie

Maryam Namazie explains that her politics was shaped by the Iranian revolution and by worker-communism. ‘To me, that revolution is unfinished. The future revolution of Iran is clearly a female one.’ She became an activist as a result of her own life experiences. As a young immigrant in the US, she worked at McDonald’s while her father, who had been a journalist in Iran, worked as a courier and a security guard, anything to make ends meet. ‘One feels sorry for the older generation’ Maryam tells us, ‘because they gave up everything for us and then we go ahead and become blasphemers and apostates!’. This last comment is made in jest as are a number of other stories of her family and childhood.

Namazie tells us about her great grandfather who was a Mullah. In his picture, he ‘looked like the Taliban, but even scarier!’. Her grandfather was an Islamic scholar who taught Arabic at a university in Calcutta and led inter-faith prayers, including non-Muslims. He did not insist that his wife or daughters wear the veil. Her own father was brought up in a strictly Muslim manner – no alcohol or pork, prayers five times a day. But again, Maryam explains how her father has been one of her staunchest supporters in her role as an activist. Although she was born a Muslim, Namazie has never read the Quran nor entered a mosque in Iran. ‘Religion was never imposed upon me until the Islamic regime of Iran came to power’ she explains. It was at this time, that she realised how destructive it is as a method of governance.

Maryam Namazie’s light-hearted description of her life as a young immigrant in the United States belies what she later admits was ‘the trauma of losing everything and starting all over again’. After finishing her studies in the US, the young Maryam worked with Ethiopian refugees in Sudan. However, she returned to the US after the newly established Islamic state discovered she had begun a clandestine organisation called Human Rights without Frontiers. She was threatened and forced to leave Sudan in 1990. The more refugee work she did, the more Maryam began to question why so many fled from Islamic states. ‘There’s a reason why women don’t want to live in an Islamic state, why gay people don’t want to live in an Islamic state, why young people don’t want to live there. Because everything is controlled and restricted.’ Back in the US, she co-founded the Committee for Humanitarian Assistance to Iranian Refugees. She travelled to Turkey in 1994 to work in Iranian refugee camps there. Namazie was then elected Executive Director of the International Federation of Iranian Refugees.

‘Islam, like any other belief system, has to be open to criticism’ – Namazie

Maryam Namazie’s leadership skills are quickly noticeable and stem from a combination of confidence and an abiding concern for others. During the short time I spent with her at the festival in Amsterdam, it is soon clear that taking responsibility is as natural as breathing for Maryam. This must have been both a blessing and a burden as she began her tireless battle as activist, commentator, broadcaster and spokesperson. She admits however that she has always enjoyed the support of her family. ‘That’s why it’s been easy for me to be an activist. Also, my partner is an activist. I’ve really always had a lot of support.’ As an atheist and spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, One Law for All and Fitnah – Movement for Women’s Liberation, Namazie defends the rights of those who leave and/or criticize Islam. ‘Islam, like any other belief system, has to be open to criticism’ she maintains calmly.

For Namazie then, the separation of religion and state is fundamental. She is unequivocal in her denouncement of Islam as a far-right movement. For her there is no difference between the fascism of white nationalist movements and the Islamists. She points out that religion is a key factor shared by the fundamentalists. White nationalists use Christianity – groups like the Ku Klux clan see themselves as Christian knights. While the Islamists rely on Islam to control and stifle dissent. ‘Religion is a very useful tool to control people’. This is why Maryam Namazie insists on the importance of celebrating dissent. ‘We don’t celebrate dissent enough, often we vilify and demean it.’ The rise of what she terms ‘the religious-right’ has ‘opened up a space’ for reactionary control and the repeal of women’s and minority rights everywhere. Nowhere is this more obvious than the rolling back of abortion rights in the US.

‘Why are human rights only for white people?’ – Namazie

The activist understands that she will always be a target for Islamists and the far-right. But her real concern is what she calls ‘good people’s’ difficulty in seeing Islam as part of this far-right movement. She draws our attention to a preference to view Muslims in the West as a minority group that requires protection. Yet it is more complicated than this. Namazie argues that as soon as dissenters within homogenised groups start speaking up and demanding equal rights of the kind enjoyed in the West, by Westerners, support for them diminishes. ‘They only like us if we’re quiet, submissive, if they can paternalistically protect and save us. But not if we go too far and stand up for ourselves’. Namazie tells me about experiences she has had with both the press (the BBC and Guardian) and some of the UK’s leading universities. Many universities no longer invite her to speak as she is seen as a ‘security risk.’ Although ‘one hasn’t done anything wrong’, this sort of ‘victim blaming’ as the activist calls it, means that ‘the bullies win’.

Namazie’s frustration is evident when she says, ‘What is really painful, is when you’ve got people who should be on your side, standing with you, stabbing you in the back.’ This brings her to the issue of Islamophobia. She fights against those who attempt to define it as a form of racism. Quoting the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition of the term, she questions the notion of ‘expressions of Muslimness’. She sees little difference between this and ‘expressions of Britishness’ that underpin xenophobic movements such as Britain First and UKIP. Movements which have, ultimately, fed into Brexit. Such definitions of Islamophobia certainly work to limit criticism of Islam and Islamism in the West. Maryam Namazie herself has been barred from Warwick University, harassed by Islamic Society students at Goldsmiths, and had her talk cancelled at Trinity College over the same accusations. Yet she is undeterred. Her work with the One Law for All organisation in the UK highlights the unequal treatment of minority groups who are ‘pushed towards religious courts’ under the guise of tolerance.

‘Identity politics has pushed us backwards’ – Namazie

Maryam Namazie returns more than once to the issue of identity politics. Particularly, how it has worked to further divide people who should be standing together to fight for universal human rights. ‘People think that human rights are Western – and are associated in some cases with neo-colonialism. But for us, human rights are universal. For Namazie, the rise of the far-right in Europe is particularly worrying. Islamism and fascism are one and the same. ‘The battle against white nationalism is similar to the battle against Islamism’. From such a perspective, Namazie describes Brexit as ‘very dangerous’ as it is ‘fundamentally based on the hatred of the other’. This human rights activist is clear, ‘We’re going to need to wake up and fight against all forms of fascism.’

The close relationship between identity politics and religion is particularly dangerous for women and minority groups like LGBT. When asked about veiling and the anti-veiling protests that have gained ground in her native Iran, Maryam Namazie is unequivocal in her response. Women may submit to wearing the veil, or comply with veiling regulations but take away the climate of intimidation, violence and fear and see how many will really choose to do so. There may, of course, be some women who choose to wear the veil, just as there are some women who choose to stay in violent relationships. But this doesn’t mean we should not be able to have open, frank discussions about these issues’.

‘Religion kills and should, like cigarettes, come with a health warning’. – Namazie

Maryam Namazie has dedicated her life to the protection and extension of universal human rights. She sees all forms of organised religion as a threat to such rights and is unequivocal in her position. ‘Religion kills and should, like cigarettes, come with a health warning’. As with many apostates and blasphemers before her, Namazie faces opposition on many fronts. She admits that ‘sometimes, we feel like we’re the only ones fighting’. It is clear from the short time I spent with them in Amsterdam that this group of secularists and free thinkers are deeply supportive of one another. Although many of them are separated geographically, culturally and even professionally, they are united in their common commitment to universal human rights and an end to what they see as the tyranny of religion.

‘Obedient women never make history – but we intend to.’ – Namazie

Maryam agrees that the internet and social media have been a huge source of support for them and that they could never have made the kind of progress they have done, without it. She also points out that ‘social media and the internet are doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity’. Her faith in governments as agents of change is limited. ‘I think any real social or political change in any society, has come about by people pushing for it, to the point where governments are forced to back down.’ Maryam Namazie practices what she preaches. ‘Obedient women never make history – but we intend to.’

Keep Up With Maryam Namazie. 

Maryam Namazie On The Freedom To Choose

Part 2 of an Interview with the radical secularist Maryam Namazie. 

sister-hood interviewed her after the ‘Celebrating Dissent’ event she co-organised with the DeBalie venue in Amsterdam. 

sister-hood is an award-winning digital magazine spotlighting the diverse voices of women of Muslim heritage.


This is part two of a two-part interview.

sister-hood: How did growing up in Iran shape your political understandings? What do you think the future is for that country?

MN: My politics were shaped by the Iranian revolution and by worker-communism. The Iranian revolution was not an Islamic one; it was expropriated by the Islamists who went on to slaughter an entire generation to secure their rule. To me, that revolution is unfinished and we see it clearly in social and political and working-class movements in Iran. Women are at the forefront of this struggle for change. The future revolution of Iran is clearly a female one. Iran has a chance to become another centre of feminism and secularism in the region. Like Rojava, a centre of secular space and feminist enlightenment in a war zone. I wonder though how it will be able to garner the international solidarity it deserves, when so many are stuck in identity politics and cannot fathom what real solidarity looks like.

sister-hood: Can you describe what you mean by secularism, and how you think secularism would benefit women?

MN: Laïcité, the separation of religion from the state, is what I mean when I speak of secularism. Any religion in the state, law, educational system or in public policy is bad for citizens in general and particularly bad for women. If we agree that religion or belief is a private matter, then its presence in the state is not about belief, but about power and control. More importantly, a state cannot have a belief. What about citizens who have different beliefs or none? Even most believers will not agree with the rules imposed upon them by a theocracy. If it is an imposition and compulsion, then it is no longer about the right to believe in what one wants.

Since women are seen to be the embodiment of culture, religion, national ‘pride’, male ‘honour’… controlling women is the first task at hand for the religious-Right and for patriarchs in general. Subservient women are visible signs that all is as it should be according to God and his prophets. In Iran, for example, they came for women first through imposing compulsory veiling rules. In the US, now, you can see how the rise of the Christian-Right with Trump has resulted in women’s right to abortion and reproductive rights being attacked first…

sister-hood: You’ve been very critical of the concept of multiculturalism. Can you explain why?

MN: Multiculturalism as a lived experience is a wonderful thing. People from all over, living together and sharing in our common humanity. But multiculturalism as a social policy, similarly to identity politics, divides and segregates people into homogeneous communities run by unelected ‘community leaders’ who determine the culture and religion of the group. Anyone who transgresses is an ‘Islamophobe’, a ‘coconut’, a ‘native informant’, a ‘house Arab’… This only applies to minorities of course. It’s funny how people living in the UK or the Netherlands for example can demand gay marriage and the right to abortion – but we are only allowed to live within the constraints imposed by Islam and Islamism. Isn’t that racist in and of itself? It is as if we ‘savages’ are incapable of demanding and hoping for freedom and equality. It’s as if we don’t belong to social and political movements, working class politics or progressive ideals… And when we do, we are accused of bigotry! Telling us that our fight to unveil or blaspheme or become apostates is akin to an attack on Muslims is as absurd as saying that being a suffragette is anti-male, being anti-apartheid is anti-white or being for gay rights is anti-straight… Multiculturalism and identity politics further blames victims – and allows perpetrators to play victim.

sister-hood: You took part in a documentary made by Deeyah Khan, sister-hood’s founder. How was that experience?

MN: Deeyah is one of our modern-day heroes. As a Muslim woman, she took a risk in making a film about a vilified and hated section of our communities and societies. Islam’s Non-Believers was one of the first times that our struggle for equality and recognition reached a mainstream audience. The establishment of CEMB, the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag, and Deeyah’s film are some of the key points in our movement – a movement that is not about identity politics but for equality and rights like many of the other great movements such as women’s liberation, civil rights movements, anti-colonial movements and gay rights.

I know a lot of people asked Deeyah why she was doing this film and maybe thought they could pressure her into focusing elsewhere. But that is Deeyah for you. There is always courage in her work and doing what is right rather than what is expedient.

I do feel sad, though not surprised, that Islam’s Non-Believers hasn’t got the recognition it deserves. When the Guardian wrote about her films, it said she had made four and then went on to name all of them but this one. Also, all her other films have received awards. Assuming that her filmmaking capabilities didn’t suddenly diminish for this particular film, I think the fact that our film was ignored is at least partly due to the fact that minorities can only be victims (as in the case of honour killings) or if they do ‘resist’ they can only do so by becoming Islamists and jihadis – the only ‘authentic’ form of minority ‘dissent’.

But dissent that kills and maims and decapitates and denies universal human rights and destroys democratic politics isn’t dissent: it is fascism. For sure, the jihadis have grievances, as do the white nationalists. All of us do, but many of us channel our grievances into positive movements that defend universal rights and our common humanity rather than demanding superiority or privilege at the expense of the ‘other’. That somehow just isn’t newsworthy. It also goes against the dominant narrative that brown and black people who become feminists, trade unionists, ex-Muslims, freethinkers, secularists, universalists, progressives and so forth are somehow ‘Uncle Toms’ and/or ‘native informants’. They are not ‘authentic’ enough, where really what that means is conservative or regressive enough, to be to anyone’s liking. More than saying anything about us, it says a lot about the racist ‘clash of civilisations’ worldview that sees minorities as a regressive lot that deserve only victimisation, vilification or protection. Start defending your own rights, start speaking up and then all hell breaks loose and every effort is made to shut you down.

sister-hood: You’ve contributed a section to a new Civitas report critical of the concept of Islamophobia, and you’ve also written on this topic for sister-hood. Briefly, what is your main issue with the idea of Islamophobia?

MN: Clearly, anti-Muslim bigotry exists. We live in a time where we are seeing the rise of fascism again. Apparently, it is business as usual to see ‘go home’ vans around our cities, deny citizenship to the Windrush generation or watch migrants die on our shores for the ‘crime’ of wanting a better life.

But criticism of Islam or Islamism is not bigotry. Conflating bigotry with blasphemy and apostasy aids fundamentalists and exacerbates racism by insisting that brown and black citizens are ‘different’ and in need of paternalistic protection and to be treated with hyper-sensitivity in case (god forbid) they start burning books… or worse. Call it racism, anti-Muslim bigotry, xenophobia but not Islamophobia. Islam is an idea, and a bad one at that. It must face unrelenting criticism like Christianity has faced. Islamism must face unrelenting criticism as must all far-Right movements. They are inhuman political movements. All the while we must unrelentingly also defend freedom of conscience, expression and our common humanity.

sister-hood: Women in the Muslim world are often depicted in stereotypical ways – as passive victims or religious extremists. What’s your perception?

MN: They only like us when we fit in the mould created by multiculturalism and identity politics. If we dare to turn our backs on religion or the religious-Right, we face a chorus of ‘It’s your culture and religion goddamnit! Respect it!’ so that ‘well-meaning’ people can feel better about our vilification, silencing and censoring. Well, sorry, no can do. As the saying goes, obedient women never make history – but we intend to.



Keep Up With Maryam Namazie. 

Stand With The Witches, Heretics, Blasphemers (2)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)