Happy May, Dissenters

This week, we’re examining the fine line between religious identity and ideological excuse-making—from Mohammed Hijab defending terror in Kashmir, to Harvard confusing critique with bigotry. We break down Amnesty’s chilling report on the Taliban’s stranglehold over Afghanistan, keep watch on a looming SCOTUS decision that could open the door to publicly-funded religious schools, and unpack why treating Islam as above criticism does no favors to Muslims—or to truth. Plus: Draw Muhammad Day is back! Let the blasphemy begin 😈.

Unbelief Brief

Mohammed Hijab, who is currently embroiled in a scandal involving the “temporary marriage” and subsequent abandonment of a woman who he took as a second wife, has taken a side in the conflict over Kashmir. A terrorist attack carried out by the jihadist offshoot The Resistance Front (TRF) recently left more than two dozen innocents dead there. On the platform formerly known as Twitter, Hijab writes:

"If any Indian Muslim sides with India on Kashmir, he betrays the ummah. If he desires Hindutva's triumph over Muslims, he has fallen into disbelief. Whoever allies with them is of them. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:51)"

To be clear, EXMNA is no friend to Hindutva, which, like Islamism, is an ideology of nationalistic religious supremacy that goes against the principles of secularism. While it is one thing to raise concerns about the increasing hold this ideology has on India—or about the situation in Kashmir spiraling out of control—it is quite another to side openly with the perpetrators of a terror attack who intentionally gunned down non-Muslims. That any ideology could excuse (and even glorify) these actions beggars belief.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International’s newly-released annual report further confirms—to no one’s surprise—the dire backsliding of human rights in Afghanistan under the Taliban. As Afghanistan International reports, Amnesty “highlights an alarming deterioration in civil liberties, noting that women and girls are being increasingly denied their rights to freedom of movement and expression,” where “education beyond grade six remains banned for girls.” The report also indicates that “the Taliban have resumed public executions, frequently carrying them out in stadiums and open spaces.” 

While Afghanistan is far and away the worst offender, Amnesty’s report confirms that the human rights situation remains appalling in the bulk of Muslim-majority countries. This is no accident, and it is a direct result of Islam’s overly large role in public and government affairs. You can read through the entire report here.

Lastly, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a case that could allow religious charter schools to receive public funding—and EXMNA is watching closely. The case centers on whether a proposed Christian charter school in Oklahoma, which explicitly seeks to instill a “Christian worldview” in its students, can be publicly funded. This case isn’t just about school policy. It’s about whether the U.S. will continue to uphold separation of church and state—or inch closer to theocratic capture, one classroom at a time. We’ve seen where this road leads: in the UK, the government had to forcibly take over an Islamic school that used public funds while promoting “dangerous views,” including gender segregation and extremist ideologies. Public money should never be used to fund religious indoctrination—whether it wears a cross or a crescent.

EXMNA Insights

A Cautionary Note on Harvard’s Framing of ‘Islamophobia’

Harvard University’s recent decision to address anti-Muslim bias under the broader umbrella of “Islamophobia” raises important concerns—chief among them, the conflation of two distinct issues: prejudice against individuals and critique of an ideology. While it is commendable and necessary to protect Muslim students and faculty from harassment, discrimination, or violence, the term “Islamophobia” blurs a crucial line between safeguarding people and shielding ideas from scrutiny.

Islam, like any belief system, must remain open to criticism—especially within the walls of an academic institution. By turning “Islamophobia” into official policy without making this distinction, Harvard will create an environment where legitimate discourse is chilled under the guise of protecting religious sensitivities. This is not a hypothetical concern: accusations of “Islamophobia” have been weaponized in the past to silence dissent, suppress reformist voices, and even justify blasphemy laws abroad.

Universities should be bastions of critical thinking, inquiry, and open dialogue. When institutions start crafting policies to manage perceived emotional or ideological sensitivities, they inadvertently infantilize the very groups they claim to support. Worse, they create echo chambers where belief systems—especially dominant ones—are treated as untouchable, sacrosanct, or beyond reproach. This not only undermines the principle of free inquiry, but also hinders the ability of students from religious communities to engage with intellectual diversity and dissent.

Muslims, like all people, deserve respect and protection from bigotry. But Islam—as a religion, a political framework, and a set of historical and moral claims—deserves no special exemption from critique. Elevating religious belief above scrutiny reinforces a harmful dynamic: one where disagreement is equated with hatred, and where ideological critique is treated as identity-based violence.

Harvard should lead by example—drawing a clear boundary between defending people and defending ideas. It should foster environments where questioning dominant ideologies, including Islam, is not only allowed but encouraged. Anything less is not inclusion—it’s a retreat from academic integrity.

On the Horizon

It’s that time of year again—our second annual Draw Muhammad Day Contest is officially open!

Submit your original artwork for a chance to win a cash prize—first and second place will take home the blasphemous bounty, and additional winners will receive EXMNA merch. Humor is rewarded most kindly, so don’t hold back. AI-generated content is welcome, but it must be clearly labeled and display creativity (and satire!) to be truly competitive. Text elements are fair game too!

To be eligible for sharing, please ensure your submission complies with Instagram and Facebook guidelines. Send your entries to [email protected] by May 16th, with “Draw Muhammad Day Contest” in the subject line.

Let the blasphemy begin. 🎨✏️

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].