I would like to introduce you to yet another unicorn. This one goes by the name of “CJ Werleman”. He has a crippling pattern of denialism and western-guilt; a pseudo liberal using his platform to commit a great disservice to the liberals of the Islamic world.
On November 1, 2014—Werleman posted on Twitter “Wait, has Bill Maher even been to a Muslim majority country?” If smugness took human form—let us name it CJ Werleman.
Ali A. Rizvi, a known atheist who experienced a majority of his life in Islamic nations [and has first-hand knowledge of Islam and how it affects politics, cultures and society as a whole] responded.
Rizvi claimed that as a man who had lived in three Muslim-majority countries within a span of over 24 years, he cannot even go back to one of them and suggested a discussion on why. Werleman shot back with mockery and claimed the three countries Rizvi grew up in were probably not Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia [the Aslan-logic].
Rizvi later commented about the circumcision rate in Indonesia and emphasized on gender inequality. Werleman then compared the concern of gender-inequality with the U.S. incarceration rate. Such erroneous comparisons are precisely the kind of argument western pseudo liberals make every time abuse related in the Muslim world are discussed. You mention religious violence—they’ll minimize it by referencing irrelevant examples pertaining to other countries and derail the discussion on Islamism. They believe it’s clever to belittle the Sharia Law that is responsible for grave human rights abuses that literally murder, imprison, rape and torture citizens in Islamic nations.
When it comes to pseudo-liberalism, it’s deemed gross and racist to want a better standard of human rights for people of colour—unless it’s the CIA doing the torture.
Werleman then stated “I’m not defending FGM. But nearly all in Indonesia is symbolic ritual rather than actual FGM.” As a woman, I am eager to hear him define what FGM in Indonesia actually represents through its “symbolic ritual” of mutilating female genitals.
Werleman [like Aslan] suggests VAWG (violence against women and girls) in the Islamic world should be minimally defined through deceitful wording to subvert the facts on FGM [one of the most violent expressions of misogyny].
As the record stands, both Werleman and Aslan made glaringly asinine statements about Indonesia and FGM—it’s like witnessing two little unicorns that grew wings in solidarity for each other’s common ground and flew away—far, far away from reality.
Essentially, when Werleman questioned Bill Maher’s knowledge about Muslim-majority countries while dismissing claims made by people like Ali A. Rizvi—it became clear he wasn’t looking for an honest and informative discussion; he was merely trying to score political points against the West to appease his own vendetta—which makes him a vile opportunist who is dismissing the suffering of non-whites to make himself feel better.
As for Werleman’s contempt for the U.S.; it’s a result of a non-tribal attitude towards his own country of residence or origin [which is a good thing] and then the anger and frustration builds up, eventually transpiring into a state of obsession that destroys objectivity and pins all blame on that one country even when evidence prove otherwise. So, naturally, he didn’t waste any time in blaming the U.S. for the December 15th terror attack within the Lindt Café in Sydney, Australia—his homeland.
His regard for the U.S. convinced him that Man Haron Monis, the Islamist gunman, was a disenfranchised Muslim who rebelled [by killing innocents] against Australia [the nation that gave him refuge after he fled Iran], because it had wronged him through their involvement in the U.S.-led Iraq conflict for the second time.
Hours after the attack, Werleman then suggested that the Islamist was “motivated by Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan”.
It takes a special kind of wife killer and sexual predator as Monis to feel indignation over Australia’s interference in the Middle East and Central Asia. The man was after all, committed to the code of conduct of ISIS which involves sexually assaulting women and murdering them. Surely that suggests he was the oppressed one.
During the course of terror, BBC reported that a “black and white flag with Arabic writing” was seen inside the café. Lives are at stake—but political correctness seemed more necessary.
There’s a pointy thing holding a rectangle material illustrated with red and white stripes with a bunch of stars over a blue backdrop sticking out of the moon’s face somewhere—have you seen it?
Werleman doesn’t always plagiarize—he actually has thoughts of his own, you know! Whenever an Islamist pops up—he’s there to blame the U.S. It’s quite amusing to see a white male [the same kind he complained about in an article], who much like thousands of other white males from the left fringe who fight to appease religious prides, promote a culture of blame regarding religious violence [that has been plaguing the Middle East and Asia for over fourteen centuries] on the U.S. that is barely three hundred years old.
According to Werleman’s narrative on “Islamophobia”—even those who have survived Sharia Law are bigots and have no idea what Islam is—because he knows better as a white man from Australia living in the U.S.?
Werleman and his supporters don’t even see the irony in labeling a Muslim woman or man of colour an “Islamophobe” and “racist”. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a recipient of such vile and irrational hatred. As a survivor of Islamist brutality [including FGM]—she has every right to denounce the ideology. Society’s sentiment towards Islamism is what had made her a victim and yet pseudo-liberalism denies her justice by calling her a tyrant and writing grand apologias for her sufferings.
Women and girls in the “Muslim-majority” countries are dehumanized and deprived of human rights to the point where civil human beings will tremble with indignation. And yet I’ve never witnessed people more obtuse than those who justify or dismiss VAWG and misogyny to defend an ideology.
Werleman suggests bombs and drones are what’s compelling decent people into becoming religious zealots, and it was that easy for them to start killing, raping and torturing the people they call ‘infidels’. But in the presence of intellect—it’s easy to deduce one does not become a raging religious fanatic overnight because of political strife. Only way a person can become such violently devout religionist is through the enthusiasm for a religious totalitarianism—that means accepting religion in its most literal context. And where there are blasphemy laws—there’s a profusion of said fanatics.
By dismissing the reality of Islamism [which is a state of religious colonialism]—you are also endorsing an insidious logic that justifies rape, murder and a collective punishment on the non-Muslims like the Jews, Hindus and Christians. Even the Ahmadiyya and Shia Muslims aren’t safe from the wrath of the majority who claim to be “true Muslims”. It has even become a taboo to refer to Islamists as “Muslim extremists”—and with such logic—the Babri Masjid was not destroyed by “Hindu extremists” and nor were they responsible for the 2002 Gujarat riot that left hundreds of Muslims dead—but instead, a bunch of “not-real-Hindus” committed those atrocities. And you can stop calling the attack on Gaza a “Zionist attack” because that would be a blatant generalization of Jews. Shame-shame!
There’s a plethora of Islamists terrorizing people from all over the world. That’s what makes it a global threat [and compels more outrage and fear] and it has been repeatedly proven by Islamists of multiple nationalities and races. There are white, black and brown armed Jihadists. Reducing this primitive sentiment of violence [for god] as the fault of the modern “west” is simply negligent and such fallacy further inflames Islamism.
The rise of the Nazis were also belittled and ignored until over six million Jews died—let’s try not to sow that seed again—not that the Islamists would mind.
[Pseudo] liberals also devastate the struggles of Muslim reformists. These are Muslims who are honest about their religion’s dominance in politics and culture. They know precisely what Islamism is [they have lived and breathed their religion since childhood]. They are risking their lives by speaking up; they can be hung by law or attacked by mobs of fanatics for merely suggesting the Islamic scripture be altered [in Islamic nations]. They are the true reformists of Islam and want genuine change in the scriptures so their Islam is not the same as the one revered by extremists like ISIS. But the “true Muslims” strike again and call them Islamophobes and western liberals are more than happy to cheer them on, preventing any real change.
If rejecting all religious bigotry to defend human rights is a radical idea of atheism—then what is the act of venerating an ideology that promotes industrial scale rape, slavery and slaughter on non-worshippers? According to Werleman’s logic, when Islamists scream “Death to Democracy; praise Allah!”—it is a metaphor for “U.S. Foreign Policy Sucks”. People just keep taking Islamists out of context I suppose?
If you can look back at history, when has religious and racial pride ever contributed to societal progress? Nothing has been more foolish than crediting achievements of humanity to religion and the pigment of skin. And a terrible trend of equating religion to race is also being pushed to silence criticism of ideologies. These people might as well just protest for the bronze-age to return.
The Achilles' heel of the Middle East and majority of Asia have always been the uncontested reign of religion. Anybody can demonstrate to be an apologist like Werleman and use the U.S. as a scapegoat because they did conveniently present their ego in place of Islamism. But also understand that every religious reformation in these parts of the world have been deemed blasphemous [where citizens are being hung or imprisoned for their sexuality, secularism, atheism and demand for a liberal democracy]—and therefore, it is safe to conclude even if the U.S. had not meddled in their affairs—the rise of Islamists [like ISIS and company] would have been inevitable.
When worshippers view their religion as an authoritative source to dominate the rest of society for their own tribal convenience—it expresses religious fanaticism at its most dangerous form. This is a fact that has been proven throughout history a hundred times over and more.
When people are singing ballads of apologia for religious tyrants while remaining mute or dishonest about the source of their tyranny [the ideology itself]—it is bound to trebuchet into the very heart of liberalism. And with such foundation that recognizes human rights left muddied in chaos—how much more applicable is the threat to liberal-democracy around the rest of the world? It has never been more imperative than now in the 21st century to prevent a primitive ideology from hijacking the only source that aims to accomplish equality and justice.
And CJ Werleman certainly seems wrapped in liberalism and is appealing. But only when you loosen the ribbon, you get a jack in a box with a repelling smirk, swinging from one place to another—obnoxious and boring. His appeal is like a mythical creature—it simply doesn’t exist.
Aki Muthali is a freelance writer, who's a feminist. Born and raised in Sri Lanka, she currently lives in Canada. She’s also an illustrator and a painter. Follow her on Twitter
