The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss - Maryam Namazie

Episode Date: October 30, 2020

Lawrence joins human rights activist Maryam Namazie at her office in London to discuss her work with The Council of Ex-Muslims, the rise of fascism in the west, blasphemy, “safe spaces”, and more. See the commercial-free, full HD videos of all episodes at www.patreon.com/originspodcast immediately upon release.  The Origins Podcast is now a part of The Origins Project Foundation.  For more information, visit www.originsprojectfoundation.org . Twitter: @TheOriginsPod Instagram: @TheOriginsPod Facebook: @TheOriginsPod Website: https://theoriginspodcast.com Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

The Origins Podcast is now a part of the Origins Project Foundation. Please consider supporting the podcast and the foundation by going to www.orgensprojectfoundation.org. Hello, and welcome to the Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krause. Miriam Namazi is an articulate, intelligent, forceful voice for ex-Muslims talking about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and the need to promote rationality and reason in the Islamic world. I first learned about her a decade ago when I heard her speak, and I was completely blown away by what she said and the way she said it in particular. We caught up with her before the pandemic in her offices in London, and our discussion ranged over many things, and it was actually quite prescient given what's happened since that time.

In any case, I hope that you too will be as impressed by Miram Narazi as I was when I first met her as you listened to her during this podcast. Okay, well, it's great to be here with you, Mary Namazi, because I, you're a hero of mine, I should say, for your courage. Stop. As the spokesman for the Council of Ex-Muslims and One Law for All, you speak about issues that are important, but also dangerous. And I want to talk about what you've been working on and also your history. I know you don't like to talk about your history, but this is an origins podcast. I want to begin with your origins. So where were you born?

So I was born in Iran and my father is a Muslim. My mother is actually from Nepal. She's a Nepalese. Ah. But she met my dad in Calcutta and she became a Muslim and then they moved to Iran. But I feel Iranian because I was born there. I was raised there and my politics is very much linked to the politics in Iran. But it's interesting because my grandfather was an Islamic scholar. Oh. And he taught Arabic and Persian at the university in Calcutta. I've called, He told him a mullah, and my dad just the other day told me, please don't call him a mullah. Mullahs are freeloaders. Everybody hates them. Your grandfather was a scholar. He taught Arabic. He worked. He didn't freeload from anyone. So there is this thing in Iran where people who are clergy are looked down upon. And so, you know, nobody wants to call relatives who are clergy, clergy. I never knew that. Okay. That's not the impression you get from outside, of course. Oh, well, actually one of my aunts photoshopped his turban off his head for pictures in the house. And in Iran, actually, there's a huge anti-Islamic backlash. And I think you can see it in the movement against compulsory veiling, in the labor rights movement,

and the movement against the death penalty. And of course, atheism. There's a lot of atheists in Iran. Although you can't speak out publicly as an atheist? No, of course, it's punishable by death. But even if you look at reports by Iranian government media outlets, you know, they've spoken about a tsunami of atheism amongst the youth in Iran. And I don't know if you've heard this,

but oftentimes I get this accusation that you Iranians are just too much. You're too anti-religion. And I think that is a characteristic of people there just because there is such a backlash. Sure, responding to it. Yeah, absolutely responding to a religious oppression. Well, we'll get there. But so you grew up in Iran, but then you moved to the States, right?

No, so I lived in Iran until 1980 because the Islamic Republic came into being after a revolution. That wasn't Islamic, but when they came into power, they killed a lot of people. One of the reasons I first left Iran when I was 13 was just with my mother, we were just going to go to India. She was going to put me in school there because they had shown. shut down the schools to Islamacize them. And she was meant to come back, and it was not meant to be something that was going to be forever. But when we were there, things just kept getting worse and worse, and my father told us not to come back. So he was actually with my three-year-old sister for many months until he was able to join us.

And it's kind of, I feel very sad about that period, because I guess most refugees don't get to say goodbye. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. But because we left without the intention of actually never going back. And I never did go back. So I never saw my grandmother again. I've never seen some of my relatives again. You've never been back since?

I can't go back, you know. So it is quite painful and sad for me. And the older I get, I feel much more nostalgic about it. Before it didn't bother me as much. Now it just feels very, very, very painful for some reason. Well, I hope there's a time someday in the future. sure if all goes well where you can go back. That would be great.

That would be nice. But you did go to school in the States, right? Yeah. So after we left Iran, I was in India for two years and they didn't let us stay. We actually came to Britain for a year, but they didn't let us stay. So we went to the U.S. We arrived in the U.S. in 1983 a few months before I was 17. And it's funny because at the border, they took away our passports and they said,

we know you've come to stay here. and my father had already come a bit earlier because some of my uncles were there. You had relatives here. Yeah. So, and we were like, no, no, no, no, no. We've just come for a holiday, you know. But of course we stayed and we were given residency. At the time.

And so you were given refugee status or? No, it was based on my father's, because my father was a journalist in Iran, so based on his skills. Oh, okay. That he was given permission to stay. But then, you know, and then he went to college and, the States, but then you didn't stay there. You went back and basically started, as far as I know, working on behalf of refugees, not just Iran, but elsewhere in Sudan and Turkey. And particularly, I was reading Ethiopian refugees. Was that your first job? Yeah. I mean, actually, my first job

outside of college was at the International Rescue Committee. And with them, I went to Sudan to work with Ethiopian refugees there. For me, I think, and for a lot of people who've had to leave their countries, you know, this idea of having to flee and then the situation of refugees and asylum seekers, it is a very personal struggle. So I was very much involved in refugee rights issues. So with Iranian refugees in Turkey, I did refugee resettlement work in the U.S. I also worked in refugee women's leadership training, job placement for refugees at a community. based organization in Brooklyn. So there's quite a varied and very long history of working with refugees.

I worked one of the most interesting places I worked with, and that's, I think, where I got a lot of my politics from as well is the International Federation of Iranian Refugees. It was a refugee-run organization, 60 branches in 15 countries. Many of the leading lights of that movement were people who were facing deportation, who were in hiding, who were... you know, not sure if they'll be able to get to a safe country. So it was just a very radical sort of organization, defending rights, and the concept of open borders,

which I still subscribe to. I agree with you. I'm a big fan of open borders. That was different than the Committee for Humanitarian Assistance to Iranian Refugees, which you became co-founder of. Yeah, well, I founded that organization. And then what happened is in the U.S., I, was doing a master's degree at Columbia on the International Human Rights degree.

And I went to a demonstration against the war in Iraq, the first war in 1991. And I actually got beaten by the police. I was behind the barricades and 18 of us got attacked by the police. And we were called the War Parade 18 in New York City. In New York City. Yeah, this was before the Internet, so nobody knows about these things. But I actually got pulled over the barricade. The police jumped on my stomach, had internal bleeding.

They kicked me in the face. Wow. It was just, they kicked my glasses off. Because you were protesting the war. Protesting the war. It was the troops coming home. Yeah, sure. And so I left, as a result of that, I was actually charged with 13 years imprisonment for obstructing justice and attacking the police. And thank goodness that eventually footage was found of the police, like, kicking the shit out of me.

Yeah. So as a result of that, I found a grievance against the police for brutality. And as a result of that, I got $60,000. And with that, I left Colombia's master's program. I went to Turkey with that money and started working with Iranian refugees there. It's amazing. You took that money and went to Turkey, left US, went to Turkey. Yeah, yeah.

So it was, and that's where I met the International Federation of Iranian refugees and also got to no-worker communism, which is a left political movement in Iran. Okay, it's the movement in Iran. Yeah, but it's underground, obviously. So Turkey, you worked in, and of course, remotely Iran. I read Sudan. Did you spend time in Sudan or no? Yeah, I was in Sudan two years after I graduated from university.

Wow. So 1980 to 82. Was that, I mean, it seemed, I don't know if it was as dangerous then as it seems now. Well, it was, it was, you know, they do say if you can live in Sudan, you can basically live anywhere. And actually, six months after I got there, it became an Islamic state. So it was really, really awful to have to have that again. And I started an underground human rights group with some other volunteers who were working there at the time. And the security actually found out about it and they threatened me. And so I was evacuated out of Sudan before my contract was over.

So it was a big cat and mouse thing. Wow, you certainly don't take it easy, do you? And early on, I mean, you've obviously been involved in women's rights issues, especially when it comes to Islam. But in Iran, early on, women's rights issues as well? Well, I was 13 at the time. And I know there were people who were executed who were teenagers in Iran. I lived quite a sheltered life, so the revolution was the beginning of my politicization, and then having to leave Iran, that really had an impact on me. So I would say it was after that period that I became more political and worked on refugee rights issues.

But again, when you work on refugee rights issues, then it becomes, you know, you start asking questions why people are fleeing. And of course, you know, Theocracy has a lot to do with it. Islam as an idea has a lot to do with it. it, as does, of course, U.S. militarism and the situation that's been created in the Middle East. Okay, well, I want to go through all of that in some sense. I want to talk about, well, of course, now you're involved in particularly in the United Kingdom, but you also, the Danish cartoon episode you were involved in in some way as well, right? The famous Yeah, it was, we did a manifesto against totalitarianism, and there were 12 signatories for the 12 cartoons.

And it included Salmon Rosti, Ayan Hershey, Ali, and it was basically saying that Islamism is a new form of totalitarianism, and we need to be able to challenge it. Doing that means that we have to also post-cultural relativism, and we have

to be able to criticize ideas. Particularly ridiculous ideas should be open to criticism and mockery, like any other idea. Exactly. All ideas should, and particularly the ridiculous ones, but all ideas should be subject criticism. I meant it, you know, I don't think I've ever said this out loud, but I actually got one of the Danish cartoons published in a physics article. I had to change some of the words, but I thought it was right around that time and I was publishing an article, and so I included

the cartoon and changed some of the words. So I thought, great. I think it's important to do that. Yeah. So I thought they got published somewhere. So I thought that was, it was especially because people were not publishing it and they were discussing it without even showing the cartoons. Yeah. And again, It is a sort of... That's always amazed me when the New York Times and it's done this a number of times where they talk about it, but they don't want to show it. And it's like, it's just so... I personally think it's just ridiculous. Well, apart from that, it is sort of accepting blasphemy laws, isn't it?

Yeah, exactly. And appeasing those sort of rules and regulations. And in a way, it sort of gives them more strength, I think, the Islamist and the fundamentalists. If you think a cartoon, if you think you can't show a cartoon, then you're implicitly implying that somehow a cartoon is a dangerous thing. and it's not. And you're basically saying that the cartoon is to blame for what's happening, you know, because if you just didn't show it, everything would be wonderful in the world. Well, let's move from there to here now.

The issues that you're dealing with with extremism in the UK, United Kingdom and your organization, which I first learned about, I think when we were here filming The Unbelievers, probably the first time and got to visit it, a very brave group people. We actually filmed, we were filming, but, because a lot of people were very worried for their lives. They asked us not to film their faces, which we didn't do. And then I was, that's when I first, I don't know when it was when I first hit me, but I remember at the time when Richard and I were going around,

people would say, oh, you're so brave to be speaking out. And I said, we're not brave. These people are risking their lives and, or at least feel they're risking their lives. So maybe you can talk about how that, how the organization of ex-Muslims began and what it's about in the Yeah, I mean, I think the Council of Ex-Muslims is an international movement, you know, and it is, the idea behind it is that if you're going to be killed for something, if you're going to be threatened or shunned or ostracized because of it, then one way of resisting is to come out publicly because, one, it normalizes it. It allows other people to see that dissent is possible, leaving Islam as possible, being an atheist is possible, and that the more of us do it, the less it will feel scary. And, you know, I think that, you know, people thought it was a ridiculous idea. I remember a guardian journalist asking, well, why do you even need to do this?

There aren't even ex-Muslims around. What's the big deal? Whereas, in fact, now we're seeing that there are so many. It is really a tsunami of ex-Muslims across the globe. And I think that fear still exists, of course, because there are still countries that punish atheists and apostates with the death penalty. But the fact that there are so many of us, I think, gives a lot of people hope and courage.

And I think those are really important when you're fighting really dark, barbaric, brutal sort of movements like Islamism and the religious radar. Well, I think even any time, not feeling alone, you know, I found it in the response to the unbelievers, people from the States would just say, I just have been questioning the existence of God. And I feel I'm all alone. I feel bad. And then seeing that other people do, it makes you realize that you're not different.

And a lot of people are doing it. And so I think you were saying to me before we began recording that now people are less afraid here in the United Kingdom of having their faces shown than they were, say, five or six years ago. Well, I mean, I think when we had our first ex-Muslim conference ever in the world, I think, it was basically very few ex-Muslims were there. They were all on the balcony. And there were people who were asking, well, is this really an issue then? Because where are they? And I just said, just wait, they're going to come, you know. Because for people to show themselves, there's got to be a space for that, you know.

You've got to create that space. You've got to push open that space. And so now, though, just in August, September at De Bali and Art Center in Netherlands, we had a gathering of ex-Muslims. And the number of people who are out and vocal now all across the world, including in countries where it's dangerous, you know. It does just show how much people want to be free from religion's constraints and how good it feels not to have to live under those constraints anymore. No matter who you ask, however difficult their lives have been, they'll always say the risk is worth it, you know, because to be free, to think freely, to live as you choose, is really something special, isn't it?

Oh, of course, absolutely. And we take it for granted. I mean, in spite of the many complaints I have about living in the United States and about what's going on there, I'm free at the same time to at least say what I want. And at least, you know, people may hate it, but I'm at least free to be able to do it. And it seems to me it's sort of even more important an issue now because as, especially with Brexit and the xenophobia that's happening about immigration, where immigrants are now being viewed as always bad, which is also ridiculous. that, and I think one gets the sense for many people who sort of become insular, that they see this, what they think of as a Muslim wave coming into the United Kingdom, that being able to have an organization that says these are ex-Muslims that is even more important right now to

demonstrate that moving, in particular, moving to an open society allows people to become more open and become more questioning. Yeah, and also, I mean, I think one of the things that both the far right does, as well as the sort of the parts of the left that defend Islamism and the religious right, when it comes to minorities, at least, is that they only see homogeneity in societies and communities. So they think we're all, you know, we all love Sharia, we all want to wear the veil, we all are, you know, conservative, strong believers. And I think what the Council of ex-Muslims does is it shows that, you know, there is dissent. There's a lot of dissent within so-called Muslim communities and societies. And it does break that idea that we're all

the same. And I think it's important challenge to race this as well, because they like to collectively blame all of us for anything that the Islamists do. Whereas in fact, there's so much resistance. I mean, a lot of the reasons why there are so many people fleeing from the Middle Eastern North Africa is for this very reason. It's a contestation of ideas and values. And people don't want to live in dictatorships and in theocracies. And so, you know, this idea of labeling people automatically as Muslim, as religious, does a disservice to people in general?

Because there are lots of believers as well who don't necessarily agree with the fundamentalist view of religion. Yeah, I think it's really good to break. stereotypes. And to point out, and I also, as you point out, giving courage to people who might not otherwise have that, to see that people are openly ex-Muslim. In this country, most people who call themselves Christian don't believe in the nonsense. They call themselves Christian because they like to be thought of as good people. That's what they said in this Richard Dawkins survey that was done of people who claimed Christian on the census.

So there's this incredible pressure to label yourself and be afraid to not label yourself as Christian because you won't be thought of as a good person. Similarly, to be able to see people who are willing to label themselves as ex-Muslim, against something for which there is a stronger social pressure to not remove yourself, is really, really important, I think. Yeah, definitely. And also, I mean, it shows that people can be good without religion. I think that's very important.

But also, you know, I think for those of us who've lived in theocracies, this is the most reasonable outcome, you know, because you can pretend religion is nice and friendly and fluffy when it's been pushed to the wall. Yes. And, you know, it's handing out food at soup kitchens and having homeless shelters because it has no choice to do that because no one takes it seriously anymore. But when you are faced with it, you know, in power, when it's actually running inquisitions, you know, and hanging people from cranes in city centers, you know, for crimes against chastity, for immorality, for corruption, for enmity against God. I mean, these are charges that actually exist in places like Iran. Then, you know, this struggle not just against them, but against these ideas is fundamental. Because I think, you know, if you live in that situation,

anything you do becomes a challenge to the state, and if it's a theocratic state, then to the theology behind that state as well. It's really intertwined. And that's why, you know, if you have a woman who decides not, she takes off her veil in the street and Iran, the government sees it as a crime against God, you know, because it does challenge religion and a religious state directly in a way that, what necessarily be the case if you're living in a secular, society. Well, it'd be interesting, I was just thinking as you're speaking, it'd be interesting to see what happens as the Republican Party tries to turn the United States into a theocracy. And I particularly thought I was intrigued or I thought it pretty ironic when Donald Trump was at the United Nations recently in the midst of huge climate change discussions. And he skipped all that. And the only thing he wanted to go to was a religious, quote unquote, religious freedom forum for, and they've now done a, basically, they're trying to promote this religious freedom and work, which basically allows organized discrimination against people who may not be religious. Yeah, I mean, and also, I mean, one of the things we were saying

40 years now, because the Islamic regime in Iran has been in power for more than four decades, is that if the Islamist right gains power, it will help. to increase the power of other religious right movements as well, because they do fundamentally share similar characteristics, and they have similar aims. They actually have a lot more in common than they don't. And that's why oftentimes at the UN, for example, you see these religious right movements,

the Jewish right, the Muslim right, the Islamic right, they're working together against women's reproductive rights, against free thought, against blasphemers and apostates. You see that very clearly. So, you know, it is unfortunate that a lot of people on the left who should have been in, who should be supporting apostates and blasphemers, because isn't that one of the main banner, you know, banners of the left is anti-clericalism, anti-religion, you know. It has, it was in the vanguard. It's a hundred years ago. It should be.

A hundred years ago. It was in the vanguards of that. And now we see it defends Islamism because it sees Muslims. as a homogenous body and think that because Islamists represent Muslims because they're in power, that therefore they have to support the Islamists. And that's been my experience all along, you know. They'll always side with the Islamic society and not with those of us who are defending women's rights or gay rights or the rights of free thinkers.

And, you know, in a sense, you reap what you sow, you know, so when you support the Islamists, well, you are indirectly also supporting the rise of the Christian right, the, the, the Hindu right, the Buddhist right, and we're seeing now a rise of fascism as a result. It is always interesting to me how various religions, which seem to be in conflict, can overcome their differences when it comes to hating other people more. It is ironic. And I want to concentrate on that a little bit more. But before that, there's the ex-Muslim organization, but there's also a big issue,

the one law for all, your other hat, with concerns about Sharia law. not just obviously in Iran, but in the United Kingdom. And people may not be familiar with what's going on, so maybe you could talk a little bit about that. One of the things that we always explain is that whether it's apostasy or blasphemy laws, whether it's gender segregation at universities, you've had experience with that, whether it's, you know, accusations of Islamophobia or Sharia courts, these are not people's right to religion.

They're very much part of a fundamentalist project to, control the population and more specifically always to put free thinkers and women in their place, sexual minorities and so on. So with Sharia courts, again, if you look at its history in Britain, it came into being in the mid-1980s, again, after an Islamic regime was established in Iran and we saw a new round of Islamism, the contemporary Islamist movement. And so what you see is, again, this is what we always explain, is this is not something that just came out because Muslim women suddenly didn't want their rights any longer. You know, they love to be worth half of a man. They love to not have rights to child custody or divorce. They love to be in a situation where marital rape is not considered rape. It's the right of a husband, you know. So clearly what we try to show is it's part of this fundamentalist project. And one of the things we've done in the One Law for All campaign is gathered, lots of groups, particularly minority women's groups, because really mainstream feminism isn't interested in these issues. They think if you defend the rights of minority women, it's racism,

you know, and again, the absurdity of that. In fact, I was going to get that later, but you've had that experience, right? You had, weren't you shouted down, weren't you at, I think it was at Goldsmith's University in London, you were giving a talk, and weren't you condemned by the feminist society in the university? Maybe you could talk about that. Yeah, I mean, it's hilarious. But just to finish up on the Sharia thing, I think what's important is, you know,

we gave evidence to a Home Affairs Select Committee parliamentary group that was investigating Sharia. And we organized 300 testimonies of women, minority women whose rights were violated by these courts. And we collected lots of documents. And we collected lots of documentation to show how these courts actually have links to fundamentalist networks. You know, so one of them, for example, the Islamic Sharia Council, the oldest one, has an organization that's part of it. That, for example, has the representatives from the Saudi or the Pakistani government on board.

There are organizations that are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood to other organizations that have called for the murder of, you know, free thinkers and also Muslim minorities, like let's say the Ahmadiyas in Pakistan. You know, so, or Christians, for example. And so we've shown how these are linked and also how women's rights are violated and discriminated against in these courts. There's over 100 in Britain, as far as we know, but there most probably are a lot more. And the government, despite all of this evidence, didn't take any steps to get rid of them. So they, I mean, they didn't get any steps to get rid of them. Do they condone them officially or is it just turning a blind eye? Well, basically what they say is that these courts

are not courts, even though we've shown evidence that they call themselves courts, those who preside call themselves judges, and they're using Sharia law that is used in Iran or in Pakistan. It's that same sort of law where a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man, that one of the judges said that marital rape is not rape. It's an act of aggression to call it rape, not the actual rape itself. You've got them accepting child marriage because, of course, they say they don't accept child marriage, but it's because they don't consider anyone who's reached puberty a child anymore. So they play with double speak. They use language that's different than the language that everybody agrees with in a society. So a child is not really a child. And, you know, they've got

situations where in inheritance women get half of men and all of that is being implemented here in the same way that it is in a Sharia court in Iran. And what the government says is that, you know, people have a right to go to arbitration courts and have their issues arbitrated under any law that they want. And of course, that's the case when it's a business, you know, sometimes businesses or financial issues. They want to go to arbitration which, and and arbitrators that are very familiar with the details and the issue at hand. But the thing that we say is that arbitration, of course, is something that's available. There are 300 different types of arbitration courts like employment arbitration.

But when it comes to family matters, you know, they're not meant to be addressing child custody and marriage and divorce and domestic violence. These are criminal issues, for example. Domestic violence is a crime in this country. should be. And the courts, the Sharia courts, don't see it as that. So what we've explained is that it's actually they're using arbitration for things that they're not meant to, which is denying women rights in the family. And again, the government turns a blind eye on it because the reality is, look, they want Sharia courts because they, you know, we live in societies

that are divided into communities and groups. And we saw, you know, this is after the end of the Cold War, the Iraqization of the world. You know, that's what the U.S. did in Iraq as well, divided it up into Sunni and Shia and this and that. And they're doing it also amongst minorities in the West. So, you know, the government prefers to relegate minorities to imams and Islamic schools and to Sharia courts, and it shrugs responsibility towards citizens, you know. To keep them under control, you mean? It's cheaper. You know, you might When you have different levels of rights and different levels of citizens, it's always easier to exploit. It's always easier to control populations and manage them.

And, you know, it's their culture, it's their religion. We've got to leave it to them, leave them to do whatever they want. Whereas, you know, the state has a responsibility towards its citizens and to make sure that everybody has equal rights, you know. And those rights belong to everyone. So again, you know, at Goldsmiths, as you mentioned, When I was harassed by the Islamic Society, and it was more than harassment, you know, one of the ISOC members made a bomb sound. Oh, yes. Another one put his hand to his head to one of our members to say it's like a death threat sign.

And you can't see him do it, but you can see the person he did it to. They're standing by the door in the video, and one of them is a Libyan ex-Muslim woman who was actually. abducted by Islamists in Libya for three days. She thought she was going to be killed. And all you see in the video is her putting her hand in her face and crying because it traumatized her so much. And she never came back to any of our events. And neither did the other guy that they threatened.

So, you know, it was a very threatening atmosphere. And the video was available. And what was interesting is the video, it was only videotape because the student union didn't trust what I was going to say and they wanted evidence against me. And that's, they insisted on it being videotaped, you know. And once this happened and we put it on YouTube, they contacted me five times, not to apologize that the way I was treated, but to demand that the video be, be taken down, you know. And I thought, my goodness. And then I heard there were statements by the feminist society and the

LGBTQ plus societies. And I thought, oh, they've most probably done a statement in my favor, because even though I know that's not the world we live in. Because you were speaking about women's rights among women's rights. I was speaking about women's rights, about gay rights, about, you know. And I saw that they had actually defended the Islamic Society. And I thought, you know, that's where it really is painful because you just feel like you've been stabbed in the back, you know. Because these are people who should be on your side. And how racist of them to think that, you know, an authentic Muslim is a Muslim that wants people like me dead,

who wants sheriffs. Syria courts and that they can't even contemplate the fact that us minorities can also have social and political movements. We can demand freedom. We can demand free thought. We can, we have class politics. You know, my goodness, we have that too. In the same way that you fought for women's suffrage, we're also fighting for the right not

to be veiled and the right not to have Sharia law, you know, eradicate and completely erase us from the public space, you know. They can't begin to contemplate that. And I think, you know, it's, if anything's offensive, that's offensive, you know. Yeah, I agree. And anyway, but the reality is that you do feel very alone when you're faced with those sort of reactions. But on the other hand, there are so many of us, you know. And I think what the Council of Ex-Muslims and One Law for All has done is bring those people to the surface.

And I think one of the things we always try to do is just raise our visibility and make people see that there is so much. dissent. And of course, a lot of that is thanks to social media now that people can see us. Otherwise, we would still be invisible. The reaction that you had, they had to you, which shocked me, but not shocked me too much, you've spoken out about cultural relativism and it's dangers. And I wanted to ask you to sort of comment on that a little bit. Yeah. I mean, before also, I want to just say one thing that, you know, what they did at Goldsmiths was the direct result of me being barred from another university a few months earlier. And by the way, what we should step back, what they did at Goldsmith, they originally weren't going to have you allow you to speak at all, right?

Yeah, so, well, what happened at Goldsmiths? The Islamic Society said that they wanted my talk canceled because I would violate their safe space. And it was hilarious and absurd because, you know, this is a society that he's invited. people to speak that call for the death penalty of apostates and blasphemers. And I was merely going there at the invitation of the atheist, secular and humanist society to defend the right to apostasy and blasphemy, not to incite death against anyone. But, and when it wasn't canceled, they then came and tried to disrupt the talk. But what I wanted to say is that the fact that they felt they could disrupt my talk was because a few months earlier, Warwick University Student Union had barred me

from speaking there because they said that my presence there would be inflammatory and that I would incite hatred against Muslims. And again, you know, this idea that if you criticize religion or the religious right, that it's the same as placing harm and violence on people is so absurd because actually we're fighting that hate. And the incitement of hatred against all. us. It's the other way around, but you know, the world is so topsy-turvy. Well, you know, I think it's part of a more general situation, which we'll go to now because we're on it. I was going to talk about later. But the whole issue of safe spaces in universities and the fact that the universities seem to be designed now to protect students from ideas

they might not like. This is part of a more general phenomenon. I don't know. I'm surprised. I know it's really prevalent in the United States. It's interesting that it's also happening in England, that there are safe spaces, for example, and that somehow a speaker, after all, people just don't have to show up if they disagree with it, but in particular, that students at university shouldn't be safe from ideas they don't like. That's the whole point of university. I mean, 100%. It's common sense, isn't it? I mean, I completely understand the concept of safe space. We have safe spaces for ex-Muslims in our support groups that say they want to talk about some of the issues they faced. Women who faced violence, for example, would have safe spaces.

where they go and talk in a refuge. But, you know, to say that a university, a public space, has to be a safe space, you know, is absurd. Especially a university where, you know, the whole point is that you go and have your deeply held sensibilities challenged, you know. And it's absurd to say that if you hear something that you don't agree with, that it would, you know, be so hurtful that you wouldn't be able to manage. Well, if it is, there is, then then that's... a problem that you need to overcome if you want to be an adult in a society where in a free and open society. Exactly. I mean, the example I say, well, the Quran really offends me. And honestly, because of my experience in Iran, when I hear a series of the Quran, I feel physically sick, you know,

when I pass a mosque, I feel like someone's kicked me in the stomach. But I understand people have a right to go to a mosque. And I understand that people have a right to say their sermons, even though it makes me physically sick, you know, and I have more of a reason to feel that way than, you know, the student union who's never had to deal with the issues I've had to deal with. But the point is that we've got to be able to talk about things that are uncomfortable. And that's actually, you know, when you talk about free speech, but, you know, if there's a but to it, then you don't seem to understand what free speech is, you know, because it is actually, it matters most in areas which are taboo, which are sacred, which are no-go areas. That's where it matters. Exactly.

I mean, if you talk about what people want, then you don't need free speech. It's free speech is there to guarantee people the right to say things that you may not do. And I also think that, I mean, really, even the concept of hate speech I don't agree with, because I do think that speech that incites violence, speech that incites discrimination. Okay, that's another issue. But speech, even speech that's considered hateful. I mean, religion is the most hateful speech ever. I think the only, I've thought about this as well. I think the only kind of speech that you can worry about is when you tell,

when you tell someone, go out and shoot someone or something like that, when you literally encourage violence by trying to encourage people to commit violence. But otherwise, words are words. And I learned as a little kid that, you know, six and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Yeah, yeah. And, uh, yeah, I mean, I do understand. I understand words can be hurtful. I understand that. But, you know, do you think when we hear what religion says about us, it doesn't hurt us? You know, of course it does. But, you know, the point is that being hurt is not reason enough to stop people from speaking. And we can't be protected from things that we find offensive, uncomfortable. Uncomfortable or offensive. I mean, in American society lately, many parents want to protect their kids from anything that keeps them uncomfortable. And I think that that's a, that is

part of the problem, and I see it on American campuses a lot where the notion of being uncomfortable is something that you feel like you should be protected from. And you can't be protected from. And in particular, what part of growing is to learn how to deal with that, how to personally deal with that, and either speak out against it if it makes you uncomfortable or ignore it. There's a lot of options you can have. Yeah. And also, I mean, I think it goes back to this whole idea of identity politics. and cultural realism, which you mentioned earlier as well. It's this idea that people are homogenous,

and it's about protecting a group rather than people as individuals having rights. And so what happens oftentimes it denies rights to those who are transgressing the group's rules and dissenting from the dominant culture and narrative. you know and so it's because of this that it sees any criticism of culture or religion as an attack on people whereas in fact it's not yeah and well to just make it clear for people who haven't sort of heard about cultural relativism or what that word means i don't like necessarily use jargon but the idea that somehow that it's inappropriate to ever speak out against some aspect of another culture yeah it's basically saying that all cultures are equal and equally valid. Well, definitely not, you know. And also, it's basically saying that because people like myself who come from a Muslim background, for example, we come from the so-called Muslim community, and our culture

is different. And therefore, Sharia courts are okay for us. The veil is okay for us. And people need to respect the veil. They need to respect Sharia law. But I think things that are so intolerable and so disrespectful to human rights and human dignity, we should at the very least, disrespect them and we should also challenge them wholeheartedly. Well, it's also just unreal, not realistic. It's a myth that you homogenize

people to talk about a culture, as if everyone in a culture has the same views. It's just like universal human values, which one can talk about. But I'm not sure exist. If you actually look at the day-to-day functioning of many people. And in the abstract, one can talk about many things. But in the real world, one could talk about an American culture. But certainly, if you go to the United States, there's hundreds of different cultures. Exactly. There's not one culture.

Culture is always, it's not static either. It's constantly changing. And I think there's a contestation of cultures and values all the time in every family, in every neighborhood, in every society and so-called community. So in a sense, I think it's about which side you take, really. I think fundamentally that's the where it, you know, where the line is drawn. If you want to side with the ISOC, the Islamic Society, or you want to side with dissenters. If you want to side with the Islamic regime in Iran or the woman who's being stoned and, you know, whose side are you going to take?

And I think that's where you then determine the values that you defend. So I do think there are universal values. But there's a clash between universalists and secularists with the theocrats and the, you know, the modern-day fascists, really. It's important to distinguish, and I think you just sort of did it. I'd like to go into more detail. There's terms that are being bandied about when people criticize people who may criticize. For example, I want to talk about distinguishing Islamophobia, as it's been called, and racism. And Muslim versus Islamist, which I think are terms that are bandied.

about, and for many people may represent the same thing. Many people say criticism of Islam is racism and also say that Muslims and Islamists are the same thing. Well, I mean, I think for Americans, or at least Europeans, it's quite easy to see what the distinction is if you look at it from Christian point of view, you know, like what's the difference between Christians and what's the difference with the Christian right? You know, there's a huge. difference and you have Christians who are Christians in name only, who are actually atheists. They're the ex-Christians, you know. And the thing is that all of us have so many characteristics that define us. When there's stress in only one characteristic, there's a problem, there's someone

out there trying to push that agenda, you know, because we're so much more complex than that. So when the only characteristic that describes people like myself is Muslim, you know, there's a fundamentalist project they're trying to make us Muslim, even though we don't agree. So I think in that sense, it's a distinction between people having ordinary beliefs in religion. And again, even that, you know, I know some people will say, well, they're Muslim. So they support beheadings and they support jihad. Well, my dad doesn't support beheadings and jihad. He's a Muslim.

You know, he was brought up very religiously. He doesn't eat pork. He doesn't gamble. he doesn't drink alcohol. You know, he grew up praying five times a day, but he never made me wear the veil. He never made me feel less for being a girl. He supports me even though he doesn't agree with my position on things.

And, you know, I grew up as a Muslim, but I never read the Quran. I never entered a mosque in my life, you know. And I never fasted. We had family members who fasted during Ramadan and some who didn't. We had some people who were veiled and some who didn't. It was, you know, no one told us, or you can't eat because X is fasting and you're going to offend them.

That's how it is today, you know. And what I want to say is that it's the effects of a religious right that has suppressed for decades that has imposed this image of piousness and conservatism that actually underneath is bubbling and exploding, you know. And I think we're seeing a lot of that as a result of social media. So it's becoming more palpable now that resistance. Well, you've often talked about the fact that it appears as if there's a confluence when one is criticizing Islam with the far right who's criticizing Islam. But of course, what you're trying to say is that you view the far right who are criticizing Islam as in some ways just as bad as Islam, or at least maybe not just as bad, but you don't want to join forces with them in any way.

Yeah, I mean, the thing is that, look, there's a lot of people. people on the left who support the Islamic regime in Iran because it's anti-U.S. militarism. Yeah, sure. But my argument is that I'm anti-U.S. militarism and I'm also anti-the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just because you have one position doesn't mean you have to join forces with the most reactionary groups that are taking one aspect of your position. So when it comes to the far right, for me, I see them as fundamentally no different from the Islamists. Islamists are far right. And so I think, you know, if they do say anything that's anti-Muslim, anti-Islam,

it's because they want to promote an agenda that's anti-Muslim and anti-migrants and refugees. You know, so I do it because I want people to be able to think freely, to live as they choose, because I defend secularism, because I defend universal values. So there's no correlation. We have no place where we can meet. And another example I give is, you know, Hamas. and Hezbollah do really good social work, you know? They have to. They have to. You know, so does that mean I have to side with them because they hand out food to people who are

hungry? You know, there is just because some people do some aspect of things. You have to look at their whole project, what their aims are with what they're doing. And what the end game is, you know, if the far right, you know, we're seeing what their end game is. Refugee shelters being set alight. They have militiams. at the border trying to attack asylum seekers who are, you know, their only crime is that they want to live free and they want to live. And safely. And safely, you know. So there's that, I think.

You know, and it does get quite frustrating when anything we say, we're constantly having to also say that we're against the far right. But that's the nature of the world we live in. But the Islamophobia argument is the other side of it, isn't it? which is basically saying that criticism of Islam is racism. Yes. And I do understand, you know, because people see Muslims as a minority, they don't want Muslims to be attacked, they see Islam as a minority religion.

But the reality is that even minorities have the right to dissent, even minorities have the right to live free, you know, and we need to be able to challenge things that are wrong. You know, in the Iranian Revolution, they said, oh, don't worry about women's rights. there are other more important issues. Today, when the women are going out and removing compulsory veils, getting 24 years in prison as a result of it, they're saying that's not the main issue. There are other issues. Of course, there are other issues. But women's rights is also an

important issue. The right to apostasy and blasphemy is also an important human right. And, you know, nobody ever works only on one issue. We don't say, oh, you know, I'm in defense, I'm a support of gay rights. Fuck animals. You know, we don't say that. We defend animal rights. We defend gay rights. We might focus on specific things, you know, but we understand that rights are interlinked, that the, you know, the violation of rights in one area affects all of us, you know, if the windrush generation is being deported when they have a right to stay in Britain, if migrants are being put in cages in the United States, you know, if people are drowning at borders, it affects citizenship rights as well,

because the reality is the division between a migrant and a citizen is arbitrary. It's a piece of paper. It's a piece of paper. And if one set of people can be so dehumanized that their bodies washing up on your shores is business as usual, well, they're going to come after you next. They attack the most vulnerable first. And it's always the case.

That's how it's always been in history. It's the easiest thing to. And to control an inner population by finding people that they can be afraid of is, is always been effective. No matter what the government is, democracy or dictators. one of the things about equating Islamophobia or a criticism of Islam with racism is more fundamentally irrational in the sense that if you label an idea as a race, you're immediately when you classify things in terms of racial terms, which are not, it allows you then to later on

take people and classify them in terms of can easily be seen. second-class citizens for something that, for an idea they may or may not have. Being a Muslim and how you approach it has nothing to do with your racial characteristics. In fact, race itself is probably a ridiculous idea that humans have come up with it. But once you classify an idea into racial terms, it opens the door later on for people who are going to use that in one way another to discriminate. Yeah, I mean, of course. I mean, people do argue that Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. And as you said, race is a social construct. But the fact is that people see Muslims as a minority. And they think that they don't want to, they want to protect them.

But my argument is that how dare you be so paternalistic as to think that people need protection just because they're minorities? How dare you not see that we also have funernalistic? And I'm fights and battles taking place in our communities and our societies that are just as legitimate as any of your fights. And this is a problem I have with people like Chomsky as well. I have a great amount of respect for him. But he only sees U.S. militarism. He doesn't see that, you know, our imperialists are the Islamists as well. Yeah. They have destroyed, you know, values and cultures. And the fact is that, yes, okay, the U.S. is the worst type of imperialist. okay, Iran is an example of how U.S. militarism has had an effect in what's happening today.

For example, even Islamists coming to power was something that was decided in Guadalu by the U.S. as part of its foreign policy during the Cold War to create a green Islamic belt around the Soviet Union at the time. But, you know, the reality is that an Islamic state is also a capitalist state, not just the U.S., you know. And Islamic State also uses torture, also attacks the working class, also attacks, you know, people's rights. And in the same way that there is a legitimacy to fight for the right to unionize in the United States, to fight for bread and roses during the 1912 textile workers March, the same that there is a right to fight for civil rights in the United States and demand an end to the Jim Crow laws and to segregation. We have that right to demand an end to gender segregation in Iran,

to demand an end to the discrimination and violence against women, against apostates, against blasphemers, why do you think that your rights are more important than ours? Why do you think that you have a right to live the way you want? And our only option is to live within the constructs of Islam, the confines of what the Islamic regime says is fine with us. So I think, you know, there's a lot of hypocrisy there. And also, in a sense, the far right dehumanizes us, but that left dehumanizes us as well, you know,

because we're not fully human with fully human demands and needs and desires, you know. Oh, I agree. Although in fairness to Chomsky, I would say that he certainly recognizes those inequities. I think what he's trying to do is bring attention to one thing that you don't get any attention to in the American media, which is the American military presence around the world. And that's his focus, but it's not as if he ignores the... Sure. is Islamism, but I'm very strong against U.S. military as Muslim. I wonder how much, how much

Chomsky has defended the rights of workers in Iran, of women in Iran, you know, and I think that's the sort of politics of betrayal, in my opinion, you know. I feel betrayed because I am firmly on the left, and I do feel that there's so many voices that are missing. And I think the reason we're not winning is because, you know, there is this idea that our culture and religion is different, that we have different demands, and that all cultures are equal and equally valid. And, you know, that when we speak up as apostates, we're the ones who are the problem, you know, it's like blaming a woman for the length of her skirt, if she's raped, you know. It's exactly the same thing.

We're blamed, victims are blamed. And the perpetrators are the victims. Oh, their poor religious sensibilities have been so offended. that they had to decapitate someone or they had to bomb a cartoonist office or they had to murder all these free thinkers, poor things. If only their sensibilities weren't so hurt. Exactly. It's this notion of somehow that being offended gives you special rights, which it doesn't. And we have to overcome that in many ways. Being offended, you have ways of reacting, but you don't have any special rights.

Stephen Fry's argued about that a lot. And, well, next time I'm having a conversation with Chomsky, we'll raise this a very issue and see what we can do. Speaking of people you disagree with, let's talk about Muslim profiling a little bit. Yes. Well, I mean, my argument is that you can profile people because of their religion or because of their race or because of their sex or anything, you know, because the reality, as I said, is you don't really recognize religion as a lived experience, something that people very often live. Most people, honestly, most people who are ex-Muslims, became ex-Muslims, because they went and read the Quran.

You know, before that, they just believed what, because people adapt to the societies they live in. They change. They, they have doubts. They question things, you know, and religion is a personal belief. So people can live it in as many ways as there are people. So in a sense, if you just, you just. equate Muslims with Islamism, you know, you're doing a disservice because the first victims of Islamism are Muslims.

Yeah, I was going to say the people that are most affected by Islamic fundamentalism are Muslims, not America. Yeah, exactly. And also, I mean, it's as if saying because you want to fight white nationalism in the United States, which is a bigger threat than, I guess, Islamism is. I'm glad we agree with that. I got lambasted for saying that the average American, you're much more threatened by right-wing, extremism in the United States than Islamic fundamentalism. Well, and also the sort of statistics show that there. Yeah. But imagine if, as a result, that every white male was profiled because he looks, I mean, you know, all white people look the same in the same way, all brown people look the same to the other side. That's a joke, right? So in a sense, you would think that, is that legitimate? It would never be legitimate. I hope it is. But when it comes to

minorities, it's always a legitimate argument. And I think there's a are also security experts like Bruce Schneier, who's talked about the sort of profiling and how it would mean that one in 80 million would be a potential terrorist. Well, that's the thing. I mean, the people who argue for religious profiles, say if you're boarding a plane and you random checking, well, who's, you know, who are you going to pick? Is there going to be this nine-year-old grandmother or someone who looks like they're Muslim from a Muslim country? And people say, well, you know, the probabilities might be are. But in fact, the probabilities are so small that currently, and I think this is relatively new,

if you think about the people who are going to commit violent crimes, the probability seems to be, at least looking at mass killings in the United States lately, much more likely to be someone who doesn't look that way at all. Right. But I mean, also the thing is, you know, if you profile people, it does have such detrimental, social and political. consequences because people feel that they don't belong, that they're targeted, that they're discriminated against. I think the easiest way to do this, I mean, if you look at the issue of Islamism, a lot of the Islamist terrorists are known to the government, you know, and in the same way, a lot of people who are part of the white nationals are known because they're organized

in political groups. And I think that's one thing to target is to target those sort of political groups rather than just targeting the general population. Especially, I think, it's always dangerous to encourage any us versus them mentality, I think, because then it doesn't allow them to become us or us to become them. I mean, because, as you point out, people change, people have many different views who, regardless of where they come from. And to label someone makes it more difficult for them to ever, even if they want to change. Yeah, no, I mean, definitely.

I think that the issue too is that, again, you know, someone who's a Muslim is not necessarily someone who supports the Taliban. A very small minority actually do. Yeah, the vast majority. I'd say not necessarily is an understatement. Yeah, exactly. There's no correlation. Yeah, exactly. The vast majority.

In the same way that very few white people will be white nationalist. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. So, well, in the sense of, of course, there's always going to be bigotry. there'll be religious people that have very bigoted, you know, regressive ideas about women, about gay people, but organized in a way that they would actually go and kill and harm as a result. Those are political movements, those are religious right movements. And I think targeting those movements would get us a lot further than targeting individuals who are just merely believers,

because after all, religion is a private belief. Well, let's talk about, actually, it's a perfect segue, because I want to talk about, I wanted to get away from Islam and Islam and talk more generally about religion for a little bit. My late friend, Chris Frasian, said religion poisons everything. And I tend to agree with them. And it doesn't suggest that religion doesn't do good things. But on the whole, religion allows two things, in my opinion. One is for people to stop sort of thinking and critically thinking about things.

And two, allows the easy way of a sense of, of other people being absolutely wrong. And those are two aspects. It's not just in the Muslim world, but in the West, it's appropriated morality, this notion that somehow, if you become an ex-Muslim or an ex-Christian, that you are immoral and should not have rights or at least are a danger. So I wanted to ask you about religion in general.

Yeah, I mean, I think religion is much more pernicious than that, to be honest, all religions. And I do, I mean, apart from saying that, of course, people have the right to believe in the most absurd things and the most horrendous things, religion is not only a personal belief. It's a lot more than that. You know, it's institutions. It's an organization in power. It's like, you know, the Iranian Marxist, Mansor Higman says it's like a mafia. It's worse than the mafia. It's, it just brings death and misery wherever it comes. And if it does seem to do good, like let's say in Latin America with liberation. theology. It's because the population are demanding liberation and religion has to

sort of make itself in a form that will give longevity and legitimacy. Do you know what I mean? So in a sense, here in Europe, because it's been pushed back by an Enlightenment, it's much cuddlier, it's much nicer,

you know. In human history, it's relatively recent. It didn't used to be Exactly, exactly. And I think it is, you know, push religion against the wall, take its power from it, and then it's something that can be tolerated in a way. But I think otherwise it's so pernicious. It can, it just affects every aspect of people's lives because it's not just about morality. A lot of its tenants are immoral, first of all. It's the height of immorality. But also, even the kindest, cuddliest one, there is always this threat of going to, you know, it's the height of immorality. hell, there's always some sort of threat to keep you in line. And that's the nice version, you know. In fact, no, I think no one mentions hell more. I mean, people talk about the New Testament versus the Old Testament, but I think no one mentions hell more than Jesus and who's supposed to be the kind, cuddly version. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think in that and then when it's part of the state, you know, it is hugely, hugely detrimental. But I think

one of the things also that this Iranian Marxist, Manzra Higman says, is that, that secularism is great as a minimum, separation of religion from the state. But apart from that, we need to work towards the deregigionization of society. And I really agree with that, you know, about taking away power from religion, treating it, he would say, like you would, the tobacco industry. You know, of course people have a right to smoke somewhere where you're not giving secondhand smoke to other people. But it's very strongly controlled. you have to pay tax. You can't advertise to minors. You know, you have to follow rules and regulations. You can't just go and kill animals how you want, beat your kids how you want. You know, and I think in that sense, I agree that religion has to be controlled in a lot more serious way than just secularism and the separation of religion from the state. You know, because seriously, when you look at it, you have Ayatollah Khomeini giving a death fatwa against a British writer, and he's a not even imprisoned for it, you know?

They give fatwas day in and day out, and it's business as usual because it seemed to be, you know, the privilege of religion to do whatever it wants. And reigning that in, I think, is hugely important. Education is important, but legislatively as well, to sort of target it and take away its power. Well, I think a combination of two things.

I mean, as you point out, it's different. The organized religion is a power structure, and then there's people's faith. which is a very different thing. But more than that, I think besides the question of religious power and encroaching on society and its freedoms, there's the other aspect of religion I think is important to address that organized religion and faith to some extent

both clearly meet, since there have been ubiquitous in human society, they clearly meet some needs that evolutionary or otherwise that people have. And people therefore often say, well, you know, religion meets those needs and therefore we have to have religion. The question I always ask, and I'd be happy to hear your thought about it, is why don't we look at the needs that fulfills and find out if there are other ways to meet those needs, which don't have not just myths and fairy tales, but the pernicious aspects of religion. The thing with religion, I think, is that it's so useful, and that's why we haven't been able to get rid of it. I think it's very useful for those in power because it's a way of, you know, sort of reducing your expectations from life, the life that you have right now. Because the more you suffer, the more you don't speak up, the better you are. The meek, you know, the meek shall inherit the earth or whatever they say.

And women who keep their heads down, who don't question, who don't speak, whose voice isn't heard, who are erased from the public space. those are the best women, you know, and you can see that all throughout with children, with what sort of men are good men. And so in that sense, I think it's really useful for control. And that's why it hasn't been challenged. And challenging it is still so difficult because it does have a privileged place that no other idea, regressive idea has. Do you know what I mean?

Yeah, sure. Well, and your background with some Marxism is clearly, I mean, Marx's a statement about religion being the opiate of the masses has clearly influenced. And there's no doubt it is one way that to, if the afterlife is good, then you can live with less now. And of course, in its most extreme awful version, and Christopher Hitchens was the first one who made me aware of it was Mother Teresa, who said to the, you know, the children should not be given medicine because they're suffering now will make it better for them in heaven. and a despicable, despicable idea. Well, look, as we get to the end, I wanted to say, okay, well, we talked about problems.

I want to talk about how we can resolve it. Education, of course, I'm always partial to education, but efforts to get reasoned rationality governing society rather than emotion and extremism and ideology and hatred. And of course, that's why I think science is so important as a part of that, because it helps us question ourselves. And it was exactly that your statement you said about religion. In some sense, it stops people questioning their own condition,

but also more general questions about society. What can we do? Yeah, I mean, I agree education is hugely important. The problem is that education has so much faith-based aspects to it. You know, even in a country like Britain where we're not really secular, are we? We have schools are supposed to start with prayers. We have bishops in the House of Lords. and education, you know, lots of Islamic schools, Jewish schools that are violating, you know, basic educational concepts and principles.

But again, because religion has a free hand to do whatever the hell it wants. And so you've got schools, Islamic schools, I mean, it's in the news that they're segregating girls from boys. Girls have to eat after boys. They have to be veiled. And being veiled is not just about a piece of clothing. what it says is that the girl's body is so shameful, she has to cover it, and what it means is that it has actual repercussions. It means she can't swim, it means she can't listen to music, she can't dance,

she can't play, go on a bicycle, for example. It had all those repercussions. And even there are different textbooks for boys as they are for girls, because they don't need the same sort of education and information. So how can we expect our societies to move forward if so many of our families, our children are in faith-based schools. And faith is given a higher standing than actually children's welfare and their rights. Or a reason. And reason, of course. I mean, well, because I think when you talk about Islamic education, it's an oxymoron, you know, because religion,

or any religious education in general. Religion is about dogma, is about not questioning, is about accepting what you're told and not stepping out of line. Good education. is about giving you the faculties to think critically, to rationalize things, to reason things out, and to have access to all the gains, you know, in our societies. I mean, the fact of the matter is that if you don't have access to that, you know, and I worry about our educational systems. I mean, you know, my son went, goes to a, just a public school, you know, public in real sense. In the real sense, not the British sense.

Yeah. And, you know, he was child. He comes home. while we're eating and he's like, let us pray. And I thought, you know, because I didn't want to shove our views on him, but I told him, but I made the food. And you saw where we went and shop farmers, you know, farmed this food and how, why, where does God come into this, you know? And they, they forced me to have to address things.

Well, he's asking him quite, but you did the right way. He's four years old. He's four or five years old. I mean, it's outrageous. Yeah, it is. But at least casting them questions, I think, is about. No, of course. That's the best way.

No, definitely. Definitely. But I just mean that already they're shoving it down. You know, I don't want to deal with it, but they're shoving it down his throat. Well, it's a problem here. I think it is a worry. It's worrisome if here that's happening. But of course, it's more worrisome.

I mean, we really need to deal with this as in the developing world. I once wrote a piece for Scientific Americans saying educate women, save the world. But in almost every way, efforts to educate women, especially in the third world, are incredibly important, not just because it's human rights issue, but you can then see that in fact, in terms of, since women tend to be the ones who have more impact on the children, that they not only, first of all, have fewer children, whence are educated, they have fewer children,

so you have this population problem that is an issue, but economically they can help encourage their children to better lives in many ways. And so it's really, I don't know how, I've said it, but I don't know how we can implement. What can we do to try and implement the better education? I mean, I think, look, the reality is that if you look at all the, it's like in Iran, all schools are faith schools. All schools are segregated.

Evolution isn't taught. So we're talking about hugely, hugely detrimental education that people are getting. Yet those kids have only known, those who are now in their 20s, 30s, they've only known an Islamic regime and they are challenging it and fighting for universal values. there's a thirst for science, there's a thirst for free thought. They are. I mean, I get tons of email from people from Iran all the time thanking me. You know, they somehow get my books or Richard's books. I think the Internet has been very key in that.

But I think, so one aspect of that is, of course, secular educations and insistence on secular educations. We're somehow embarrassed to demand secular education. And it's seen as an assault on religion, you know, where religion is a private belief. What does it have to do with education or the state? If it's a private belief, why is it in government? You know, why is it in public policy? It's about power when it's in that situation, not about personal belief.

The other is, I think, pushing back the religious right movement because their agenda is to religiousize everything, public policy, schools, you know, as a way of controlling the next generation. And so that's very important. And thirdly, I think it is about legislation as well, you know, making secular laws, defending secular movements, you know, across the globe, for people in the United States to see the secular movement of women in Iran and see that as their own movement and not only be obsessed with U.S. militarism,

which is a good thing. You know, we should, U.S. militarism is another form of state terrorism, in my opinion. You know, it's the other side of the coin of Islamism. They feed off each other, they create recruiting grounds for each other. But nonetheless, you know, that sort of solidarity is key if we're going to change things for the better. And I worry with identity politics, with cultural relativism, with this idea that that's your culture, you deal with it, that's your identity,

it's not my business, that we don't have that old-fashioned, you know, fight for equality and rights for everyone, not just for my group, for everyone. Well, I think that, you know, what you've eloquently addressed is that we need people to be brave enough

to speak out and to try and reach people one way or another, even if it's by shocking them, we need courageous, eloquent people, and you've demonstrated that. Oh, thanks. And you've also demonstrated that you were completely wrong at the beginning of the program when we said it was having a mistake to have you. It's been a delight to have you. And I thank you very much for this conversation. Thank you.

The Origins podcast is produced by Lawrence Krause, Nancy Doll, John and Don Edwards, Gus and Luke Holwerta, and Rob Zeps. Audio by Thomas Amoson. web design by Redmond Media Lab, animation by Tomahawk Visual Effects, and music by Ricolus. To see the full video of this podcast, as well as other bonus content, visit us at patreon.com slash origins podcast.