At LSE, you can’t call yourself an ex-Muslim group
Sundas, who’s at the London School of Economics and a member of its atheist group, just posted about them requesting an official name change. Rather than just ‘atheist, secularist and humanist’, its members voted to call themselves the Atheist, Secularist, Humanist and Ex-Muslim Society. (It’s overinflated, agreed, but it does spell ‘ASHES’.)
Her post quotes an official statement outlining their reasons for this. To summarise:
- The group recognises ex-Muslims face specific challenges and threats, which former members of other faiths by and large don’t, and wants to draw attention to this whilst providing support.
- A large proportion of members, estimated at one fifth, are ex-Muslims, and it’s felt the group name should reflect this.
- The society wants to be as visible as possible to ex-Muslims who aren’t members already.
- At the same time, not all ex-Muslims wish to label themselves ‘atheists’, as that term can bear additional negative baggage, and a purely ex-Muslim society would be unlikely, at least initially, to have stable membership levels.
One of Sundas’ own additional points is that ex-Muslims face erasure from public consciousness and in the media – so, although there’s no reason ‘atheist, secularist and humanist’ couldn’t include ex-Muslims (indeed it clearly does), explicit use of that term helps create visibility.
Reasonable stuff, one might have thought. And yet – ironically, given that last point – LSE’s student union have just denied the group’s request for the new name. The message they were sent, posted on the society’s Facebook page, reads as follows (emphasis mine):
The Activities Committee have decided not to grant the name change that you have requested.
We decided not to grant the name change because given the email that you sent us as why you would like to change the name, we feel that by adding ‘ex-Muslim’ to the society name it will no longer become a safe space for ex-Muslims; in the sense that it may be an indication as to where ex-Muslims can affiliate to. For this reason would you please consider replacing the ‘ex-Muslim’ part of the proposed name change to either ‘Atheist, Secularist, Humanist and ex-religious’ or ‘Atheist, Secularist, Humanist and ex-religion. This will be in order provide the safe space for all students who join your society and potentially increase your society membership.
Please remember as far as anything to do with LSE and LSESU then the name will stay as ‘Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society.’
‘It will no longer become a safe space for ex-Muslims [because] it may be an indication as to where ex-Muslims can affiliate’. What does that even mean?
Of course the name was meant to show ex-Muslims can join the group. Is LSE SU against that? And how would it make the society less safe for them? Are ex-Muslims endangered by joining student bodies which acknowledge their existence? If they are, surely that’s still up to them?
It’s hard to say what’s worse about this SU: their gutlessness or their grammar. Remember, they’re the ones who’ve made it a campus crime to be mean about the Qur’an, and who accused this same society of ‘racism and discrimination’ when they shared cartoons from Jesus and Mo on their Facebook page, taking disciplinary measures which have only just – breathe out – been written off.
When I ran an atheist student group, I was lucky enough not to be faced with any of this; Oxford’s societies are, by convention, independent from its student union. If I was the LSE society, I’d have disaffiliated months ago.
Oh ffs!
How kind of them to be so “helpful.”
What a disgrace!
I can see there fear,as the society itself points out there are some pressures, even violence and intimidation used against Muslims who leave the faith. It does not seem unreasonable that the name change might cause real fear, and even intimidation.
The question for me is whether the groups name change came from a desire expressed by ex Muslims or not.
It also, i think, ignores those who may consider themselves culturally Muslim.
I don’t think you can go from ‘pressure, violence and intimidation are used against Muslims’ to ‘Calling your society an ex-Muslim group might cause real fear, and even intimidation’.
If as a result of having ‘ex-Muslim’ in its name, the society was threatened, its union should be there to defend it. That’s why we have student unions. Although, knowing this lot, they’d probably blame the ex-Muslims.
And yes, pretty sure it does – I understand Sundas was one of the people who pushed for it, the society’s ‘spokesperson for ex-Muslim affairs’ Imtiaz Shams is mentioned in their statement about it and the idea was supported by a free vote by members, a fifth of whom are (as stated) estimated to be ex-Muslims.
Ahhh you see that to me is a different issue. AS a former alumni I have seen the way groups can think they know what is best for their members…however if the desire for change has come from the membership, then the SU should support them.
I can still see the fear that is motivating the SU, often organisations feel that duty of care means censorship rather then putting into place steps to ensure the safety of those they believe censorship will protect.
I can only interpret this
“by adding ‘ex-Muslim’ to the society name it will no longer become a safe space for ex-Muslims; in the sense that it may be an indication as to where ex-Muslims can affiliate to”
as saying that ex-Muslims, by indicating they will be present at ASHES meetings, will be putting themselves physical danger from angry still-Muslims who want to punish them for their apostasy.
In other words, LSESU is being “Islamophobic” in a very literal sense.
See middle paragraph in answer to Jemima above.
Absolutely.
Slightly different to not wanting to have to deal with threats to the renamed society, I suspect another part of the reason for SU’s blockage is that they fear the botheration to themselves if some Muslims or the ISoc protest to them about the name change, saying that it is singling out Islam and is Islamophobic. Then if they cave in, well, they’ll be accused by the other side of caving in, to an even more well-publicised and embarrassing degree than this pre-emptive refusal would arouse.
I suspect you’re right. But it’s still not okay.
Presumably in the same way that an LSE Women’s Society could be classed as misandrist?
In the sense of ‘only by idiots’, yes.
Well, yes. The reasons that Martin outlines are actually better than the reasons the SU actually give, and they’re still moronic. I would have had more respect for the SU if they’d just said they were worried about being accused of Islamophobia, rather than the illiterate toadying dog-ate-my-homework excuse they’ve proffered.
More evidence here of dhimmi student unions supporting Islamic supremacism.
Apostate ex-Muslims urgently need our support and protection.
The only way to stop Islamist bullying is to fight back.
How about “New non-Muslims”? It has a much more positive ring to it.
There maybe some logic to the idea that you not advertise yourself as a place where apostates can hang out as that may attract the attention of radicals who may wish to punish said apostasy. That being said, that is really just giving in to fear.
Sorry, should have read the whole of the comments before adding my redundancy.
No problem!
“‘It will no longer become a safe space for ex-Muslims [because] it may be an indication as to where ex-Muslims can affiliate’. What does that even mean?”
It means they inadvertently recognise reality – faced with something it doesn’t like, Islam reaches for threats and violence.
In addition, they think concealing opposition to that culture is somehow desirable.
From my readings, it is in fact, Islamic law to kill apostates (not to mention wage war on non-believers in pursuit of a global Islamic caliphate). So the warning does have some merit.
However, censorships is never good, and groups should be free to call themselves whatever they want.
Their only valid point is the practical matter that ex-Muslims may be targeted and hence you should at least consider whether it’s prudent to stick a metaphorical target on your head.
Personally, if I ran an atheist group, the last thing I would want to see is the word Muslim (even with a ex) attached to everything the group did. So you’re better without the ex-Muslim in the title, IMO.