Welcome

In this edition of Dissent Dispatch, we examine the ideological roots of the Bondi beach attack and the ongoing reluctance to confront Islamist antisemitism; we unpack a controversial article in the Journal of Medical Ethics that challenges global opposition to female genital mutilation; and we highlight updates from the ex-Muslim community, including new developments from exmuslim.me, the global map of anonymous ex-Muslim stories.

Unbelief Brief

Amid the fallout from the horrific Bondi beach shooting, one can feel an attempt to avoid dwelling on the attackers’ motivation. For his part, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has noted that the shooters, a father and son, took inspiration from “Islamic State ideology.” He has additionally labeled the attack, which targeted primarily Jews at a public Hanukkah celebration, as an act of antisemitism. This is obviously true, but it is vital to understand that the attackers’ antisemitism and their IS-inspired ideology share the same root ideas. 

Naveed Akram, the 24-year-old son, is reportedly a follower of Islamist cleric Wisam Haddad, who, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has influenced “multiple generations of Australian jihadists.” An ISIS “call to arms” last year exhorted followers to “strike the Jews wherever you can find them,” a reference to the Quran’s verse 2:191. Both shooters reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they murdered innocents. 

These men were evidently devout Muslims and took their faith seriously, even as Prime Minister Albanese has described their ideology as an “extreme perversion” of Islam.

It is of utmost importance that any conversation about militant Islamism not become a justification for anti-Muslim bigotry. The vast majority of Australian Muslims are better human beings than what the Quran advocates and are appalled by the incident; one of the individuals who heroically disarmed a shooter is himself Muslim. 

It must nevertheless be acknowledged that the attackers’ antisemitism was not abstract, originating in a vacuum; rather, it is part and parcel of Islamist ideology, buoyed by well-documented traditions that recount Islam’s prophet condemning and cursing the Jews. It is far past time that this ideology’s role in encouraging these attacks is acknowledged. If it is not, any attempt to diagnose and address the problem will fail. 

It is possible that Prime Minister Albanese understands this privately, at least in part — even if he will not publicly name Islamism as a primary driver of the “evil scourge” of antisemitism. His announcement of new hate speech laws targeting “hate preachers,” even without acknowledging which religion these preachers belong to, seems to suggest this. We tend to favor more free speech rather than less; the only long-term solution to this problem will probably require convincing Muslims to grapple with the complicated realities of a 7th century faith, in addition to convincing “well meaning” liberals and progressives that the problem of Islamist terrorism does, in fact, have something to do with Islam itself. Failing to do so will simply empower those that wish to demonize Muslims themselves.

Speaking of well-meaning progressives, the Journal of Medical Ethics in the UK’s BMJ has allowed an utterly remarkable article to be published: “Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign.” Couching their claims in the language of progressive academics, the authors argue that female genital mutilation is, if you think about it, really not a big deal, and everyone should stop getting so irrationally upset over it. (Also, we should stop calling it mutilation.) 

For the uninitiated, FGM can range from removal of the clitoral hood to sewing the vaginal opening shut and removal of external genitalia and can lead to long-term complications and dysfunction. The practice itself was recommended by Mohammed and all schools (madhabs) of Sunni Islam.

The authors criticize what they call a “heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework” that informs advocacy against FGM, which ignores “potential benefits” to FGM such as an increased sense of social belonging. They further raise the point of Western hypocrisy on the issue, pointing out the commonness of male circumcision in the US and the existence of elective cosmetic surgeries for female genitalia. The authors buttress these arguments with claims that anti-FGM activism largely ignores or distorts the perspectives of women who have undergone FGM and “do not identify as victims.” 

Almost completely unaddressed is the fact that FGM is almost never freely undergone. The overwhelming majority of procedures occur before the age of 15; children cannot make an informed choice about this. Pointing out that a double standard exists with male circumcision does not lead to the conclusion that much more harmful FGM should be tolerated. Likewise, comparing FGM, performed mostly on prepubescent girls, to elective procedures mostly undergone by adults is absurd on its face. While some women who undergo FGM indeed do not consider themselves victims, this does not change the inherent injustice of the act. And the ones who do view themselves as victims? The authors contend: 

“Even if women report unwanted upsetting memories, heightened vigilance, sleep disturbance, recurrent memories or flashbacks during medical consultations, a prior genital procedure may not be the primary cause for their distress.”

The authors’ most galling argument, summarized well in Why Evolution is True, is that anti-FGM laws actually “harm” women and girls by causing social stigma. Even if this claim is true (and that’s an “if,” since a note at the end of the article informs us that “no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study”), it does not mean that countries should simply give up and legalize FGM. Perhaps practices that widely harm women should be stigmatized? 

Even FGM’s “milder” forms are unacceptable to inflict on girls who have no choice in the matter. An approach to reduce FGM by legalizing it is self-evidently, pants-on-head ridiculous. The authors’ goal, however, seems to be to legitimize the practice rather than to curb it. “Cultural sensitivity” is not worth mutilating girls’ bodies — and cutting genitalia is mutilation, despite the authors’ protests to the contrary. No euphemism can change that reality.

If this article strikes you as a grotesque abuse of academic language to soften or excuse violence against girls, we encourage you to submit a response to BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics here. 

Lastly, for those interested in learning more about FGM, and particularly its relationship to Islam, EXMNA produced a deep-dive video on the topic in 2023. You can watch that here. 

From the Community

If you haven’t yet, explore exmuslim.me — the first global map of Ex-Muslim stories, shared anonymously by people who’ve left Islam. Created by a small team of Ex-Muslims, including artist Haram Doodles, the site gives former Muslims a safe and public way to speak openly — something that remains dangerous in much of the world.

The response in the first week alone underscored how needed this space is. Nearly 300 stories were submitted from 149 cities across almost 50 countries, including places where apostasy and blasphemy are still criminalized. Each submission adds to a growing, unmistakable record of lived experience.

This week, the project also introduced new ways to engage with these stories: Shuffle, which randomly surfaces a single account from anywhere in the world, and Reactions, allowing readers to acknowledge and support individual stories. Together, they turn the map into more than a dataset — they make it a shared, human space for visibility, recognition, and solidarity.

If you found this newsletter valuable, please consider sharing it with a friend—or supporting our work with a donation.

Until next week,

The Team at Ex-Muslims of North America

P.S. We’d love to hear from you! Share your feedback at [email protected].

Whether it’s giving $5 or $500, help us fight for a future where we're all free to follow our conscience.