Scott Douglas
Jacobsen: So, you’ve published an article in a peer-reviewed journal called The
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. The paper is titled “Apostates a Hidden
Population of Abuse Victims.” First, to define terms, what is an apostate? How
is abuse defined?
Hari Parekh: An ‘apostate’ is the term used to describe
people within religious families who once identified as religious or with a
belief in God and have, now, ceased to believe in the existence of a God, gods,
or having a religious faith or belief and now identify as non-religious. Each
person has their reasons for embarking on this journey – completing this
journey from religious to non-religious, and identifying as an apostate is not
an easy journey, and it appears to not be the end of the struggles defined
within an individual’s journey Given the
strong feelings families can have about the rejection of their shared faith,
this can cause further complications for the apostate themselves. As such, this
study aimed to inform the academic community and wider society of the possible
victimisation that some apostates may face within religious households. We were
looking at areas such as assault, serious assault, psychological abuse, as
measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale by Straus et al (1996). The differences
between the terms are highlighted in the paper – the variances within assault
and serious assault can be the difference between being pushed against a wall
or being threatened with death, for example. Adding to this, psychological abuse
includes coercive control, stress, depression, suicidal ideation, for example. This
study identifies that there is a higher risk of people being abused as a result
of identifying as an apostate. Sadly, the study also identifies how victims do
not have trust in their law enforcement officers to understand their plight.
Jacobsen: The
study, itself, is not a meta-analysis. It is a single study with 228 people, 102
men-119 women. Why was the survey supported through Faith to Faithless?
Parekh: The study could not be a meta-analysis because it is
the first of its kind! It is the first time that the academic community, and the
non-religious community, can point to a piece of scientific evidence and say,
“Here’s the evidence to show what is likely to happen to apostates within
religious households.” Hopefully, this study is the catalyst for further
studies, to look into the issue of abuse faced by apostates, and has the
propensity to inform non-academic services such as governments and
organisations such as the United Nations to raise awareness of the plight of
apostates. The reason for the support of Faith to Faithless, initially? It was
luck. I left my religious faith during my undergraduate degree at the
University of Northampton. My experiences were positive as my parents have not
wavered in supporting me, despite my decision. I consider myself to be an
apostate-anomaly, being someone lucky enough to not have suffered the
extremities and the abuse that participants have experienced within the study,
for example. I worked with co-founders, Aliyah Saleem and Imtiaz Shams, at the
time, and I was exposed to how much abuse people received as a result of
leaving their faith. I formed my Master’s thesis around this issue because
there was no other study highlighting this abuse within the academic sphere. I
said to my supervisor, “We need to provide victims with a voice to show the
academic community that we are failing victims.”
Jacobsen: For
those who do not know the names Imtiaz Shams and Aliyah Saleem, what is their place
in Humanists UK?
Parekh: They founded Faith to Faithless. It later became the apostasy
service of Humanists UK, to support people who leave their religious faith. They
are both amazing in their own right, do Google them! I support and work with such
amazing people to raise awareness of apostasy as well.
Jacobsen: Why
the gap in the research, in the academic community, i.e., not being able to do
a metanalysis because of insufficient studies to take any data?
Parekh: There are academics such as Hunsberger (1983) and
Hezbrun (1999) that touched upon the difficulties of apostasy, and even
recently with Dr Simon Cottee. But, it’s so difficult to provide the academic
community with an insight into the abuse of apostates, when most are hidden,
and consequently do not want to upset the balance of their household. An
individual who is doubting their religious faith has so many factors to
contemplate on: whether they will leave or not, whether they will tell anybody
or not, or whether they will publicly declare their apostasy or not, to name a
few. The consequences of each scenario can be devastating, and such are the
difficulties of apostasy. Several prominent activists have spent their life to
inform society of the experiences of people who have left their religious
faith. One would have hoped that the work of such activists would have
culminated in further academic interest. However, this is the first opportunity
for such activists to have academic evidence to solidify their work.
Again, the gap in
the research might relate to many factors. First, it is one of the more nuanced
and niche areas, whereby, if you’re not aware of the community or of this
occurring in itself, then it’s not understood nor does it factor into the
conversation of public opinion – again, a hidden population remains hidden
until it gains recognition. Secondly, the role of religion and religious communities,
and the way this organised structure can work for people suggests that it can
provide a supportive, stable, and secure foundation to people’s lives. For the
many, religious faith can provide a good foundational basis for one’s life; the
concern grows for people who do not hold a similar perspective. Third, the
political relationship that religious communities are likely to have upheld,
such as bishops being in the House of Lords in the UK, strengthens the view
that the role of religious communities, or the ideas of the religious, are less
likely to be scrutinised as a result. Fourth, the nature of academia is not
easy – we remain unclear as to whether there have been countless pieces of
research submitted for publication that have not met the standards required?
This is a common occurrence within academia. It is a common occurrence in
academia anyways. That’s the point. If several activists are speaking of people
going through the experiences, one of the major criticisms of the activists is
no one has had the evidence to show it exists. How do you reach people, where
you don’t know who, what, or how they are? How do you do that from a scientific
viewpoint? It is a minefield in itself. The study was sent worldwide – we
finally have a starting point to refer to.
Jacobsen: What
were the general findings?
Parekh: The general findings are quite interesting to be fair.
First, out of the 228 participants, we categorised them initially by the
religious faith they identified with since birth. Despite having participants
from faiths such as Hinduism, Judaism, and more, as they were not statistically
significant they could not be utilised within the study. As such, we focused
primarily on people identifying from Christian and Muslim faiths and people
identifying as non-religious. From our participants, what we found was that
those that identified as religious from birth were less likely to be religious
now. For example, out of the 130 people that identified as Christian, only 12
people currently identify as Christian; of the 68 people that identified as
Muslim, only 4 people currently identify as Muslim, and of the 18 people that
were initially non-religious, 204 people currently identify as non-religious.
So, we saw an increase of 1,033% in people identifying as non-religious and a
91-94% decrease in people identifying as religious. This appears similar to the
trends we are seeing in society – the decrease in the number of people going to
Church each week in the UK, and the rise in the number of people identifying as
non-religious within the UK census also appears to support the data in this
study.
Second, we used
the Conflict Tactics scale by Straus and colleagues to understand the levels of
violence and abuse that victims have experienced. The terms of assault, serious
assault, and psychological abuse were significant for Muslim-apostates more so
than Christian-apostates. Due to these terms being interrelated to each other,
we categorised this as assault within the study. Interestingly, even though, we had lesser
people from a Muslim heritage background take part in the study, they were more
likely to experience such levels of violence and assault. It was really
interesting, in itself, and the outcome of the study suggests a higher
likelihood to be a victim as a result. Furthermore, there was no significant
difference in negotiation. It was peculiar with the levels of violence. With
negotiation, it suggests either that households are attempting to understand
why their family member within the household would leave the religious faith?
Yet, as there is a difficulty in being able to negotiate that stance, and
trying to determine the consequences of having a family member that is not
religious within the household and community, it appears difficult for
households to reach a conclusion that maintains the household’s order.
Third, out of the 154
people who were assaulted, only 9 people reported their assault to the police,
which is only 5.8%. Then out of the 71 people who said why they did not report
it, 44% believed that reporting this would be disrespectful to family dynamics
and a betrayal of the family. 27% said that they thought the police would be
unable to help them. 10% reported being threatened about the perceived
repercussions by the family and community for reporting their abuse. So, here
are victims openly stating, they could be at risk.
Jacobsen: Some
Muslim scholars and others in the public arena and may look at the terms
“honour” and “violence” with internal concern to their community as human
rights violations in interpersonal violence or domestic violence as
dishonourable as a culture. So, it would be termed “honour violence,” but they
would see this as dishonour or dishonourable violence. How is the construct of
honour construed in the household with a religion in which honour in played out
in an IPV or a DV setting?
Parekh: It is a really serious and important issue to raise
that the study aims to not generalise everybody within a Muslim or Christian
household, in stating that “hi! All your beliefs lead to abuse and violence!”
That would be wrong, and suggesting a link would be incorrect. People are human
at the end of the day. Many people within religious faiths argue the factors
highlighted within honour-based violence is completely against the fundamentals
and the principles within the faith itself. That is a fair statement to make,
however, this is not a simple issue. Honour-based violence by its nature is
hidden and perpetrated by the people who are related to you, formed attachments
with you, and this has the potential to cause further distress for the victim
too. By its nature, it is targeted, specifically, at women and girls. With
apostate-abuse, gender is not a factor. Its very nature is based on coercive
control and collusion, acceptance, and silence within the family. For example,
by making sure it does not leave the four walls of the religious household. The
notion of honour, therefore, relates strongly with shame and guilt. Paul
Gilbert and Jasvinder Sanghera’s research identified the amount of guilt and
shame involved within honour-abuse and also reported how hidden this abuse is. The
concerns regarding apostate-abuse have similarities with the abuse faced by
victims of domestic violence, LGBTQ+ abuse, forced marriage and female genital
mutilation. These are the same nuances we’re tackling. The level of shame means
that abuse would be hidden so much more.
Jacobsen: Would
one public service announcement or concern come in the form of anti-Muslim
bigotry or anti-Christian bigotry utilizing some of this research in very
obviously skewed ways to cast aspersions and stereotypes at the communities?
Where the research is not looking at violence as a global phenomenon and
problem, but one a form of violence with that cultural and religious flavour.
Parekh: That’s the concern Vincent Egan and I did have and do continue
to have when I was doing my Master’s thesis. Publishing this piece of research
too, we were looking at how this would be reflected, how people would interpret
and understand it, moving forwards. That’s the thing in itself. Yes, the organisations
helping to find people – Faith to Faithless, Peter Tatchell Foundation,
Humanists UK, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain – are very much involved in the
non-religious communities and can provide opportunities to find people that are
hidden. The research aims to identify that people are abusing people by using
the veil of religion, culture, and tradition as a rationale, and this is not a
good thing! Abuse is abuse. In talking about this research, as long as I am
clear that the fundamental principle is not to demonise and, basically,
negatively impact religious people or organizations. It is trying to bring
awareness to a worldwide audience that there is abuse happening, and we are
missing it. In conversations with people, I have found that there are people
who are disgusted by people using their religious faith to manipulate and abuse
people in that way. I think that’s a very strong argument for this. Yes, anyone
can look at any research and manipulate it in a way that makes things suit an
agenda of hate, which might not be favourable to those who created the initial study.
However, as long as people read it clearly, we are saying, “We are not
demonizing the religious faith. We are demonizing the way people use religious
faith to abuse people. And by doing so, we are creating a hidden population of
people who can’t be reached out to.” As people become more aware of the
research, we can begin to openly talk about the issues of people being abused
as a result. By not talking about this abuse, we would perpetuate the argument
that this practice is okay and justified. We cannot – having even one person
abused is a failure.
Jacobsen: What
are the next steps for research?
Parekh: Having carried out the first study of its kind, there
are several next steps for this research area. Firstly, we wanted to inform the
academic community that apostate-abuse is occurring, and as such, we used
categorised terms to categorise the religious faith of participants. For
example, there are many denominations within Christianity and Islam that,
future research should look at seeing whether those denominations vary the
level of risk an apostate is likely to face. Secondly, we would need to gather
data that also looks at financial abuse, sexual abuse, and despite gathering
data on psychological abuse, we would still need to gather data on the
specifics within such an umbrella term. Thirdly, further research is needed on
the implications of apostate-abuse per continent, per region, per country, and
how the criminal justice systems can accommodate this crime within their legal
frameworks – this might also require further research into the devastating
effects of blasphemy laws on the victim, such as Asia Bibi and recently with
Mubarak Bala. Fourthly, research on how local law enforcement can improve their
perception amongst victims that they would be unable to support victims would
be an essential area for research – using a focus group to understand how
police forces can improve their practice would be essential. Fifthly, looking
into how larger organisations can apply this to their practice – such as how
the United Nations or Amnesty International deems abuse and how they support
individual nations too would be an investigative piece of research. Sixthly,
working with religious organisations and religious communities to de-threaten
the notion of apostasy may be one of the most significant areas from this
study! That’s quite a lot, but the opportunities are pretty endless.
Jacobsen: If
we look at the ways in which academics can use analytic techniques to find
relatively objective findings of the research in interpretation, there are
internal views from a subjective perspective, in other words, of individuals
within the research by yourself and Egan. In other words, those coming out of a
religion internally to their mind while living in a home with IPV or DV
ongoing, or at some point happening, having attitudes about it. What do they
attribute these acts to?
Parekh: Looking at the personal responses by people who
participated in the study, really provides a true reflection of their
experiences; we have tried to provide a fair opportunity to provide the reader
with an appreciation of the comments made by participants. The concerns of
participants initially began with being concerned with not believing in the same
religious faith or God that the household believes in. And, the consequences of
this ranged between being asked to leave the family home, being ex-communicated
from the home, facing threats of violence daily, to being beaten and receiving
threats of being killed as a result. Using a religious faith as a rationale for
abusing another human being is an expression of wanting to remain correct and
right. When human beings begin to believe that they are correct, then this
creates a concern, as history has shown. When a family member decides to become
an apostate, this increases the chances of other family members feeling
rejected – because their belief is more than just a belief in itself, but also
embedded into their identity formation and sense of self. So, any challenge to that
is a personal challenge, and such increases the chances of causing a personal
threat reaction. I think the religious belief in itself might be used as a
validation to all of the reason why. But again, we’re still looking at the
behaviour of the person to abuse somebody else. So, that’s what we’re seeing.
We’re seeing people threatened to be killed or abused in one way or another
because of them not agreeing or accepting the same religious belief or faith as
a family. I think the concern, therefore, is the view that just because you
don’t believe nor agree with the belief of the family; you are not part of the
family anymore is absurd. The personality of the person, the experiences, the
attachments to family members; this is not a complete list, but all of these factors
make us human. Having a difference of perspective does not change the person
that the family have created. Being abused for having a difference of
perspective is no different from blaming a person for being human – this is why
we have a brain that can think! Being abused for thinking is extreme. Being
human means we are fallible, and we need to appreciate that factor.
Jacobsen: Hari,
thank you for the opportunity and your time.
Parekh: Any time Scott!
Hari Parekh, has worked in the field of psychology for over four years. He obtained
his BA (Hons) degree in Psychology and Criminology at the University of
Northampton in 2015, and his MSc in Forensic and Criminological Psychology at
the University of Nottingham in 2016. He has worked for the student sector of
Humanists UK, holding roles of President and President Emeritus. Following
this, he is the current European Chair for Young Humanists International, and
the Volunteers Manager for Faith to Faithless. He is consistently invited to
universities to talk about the psychological difficulties relating to apostasy.
