The “Religion” section is one of the most annoying aspects of that annoying site. I don’t know why I keep looking at it, but I suppose it helps me keep my finger on the American religious pulse.
The tenor of the site is to argue that all faith is good, and any criticism of faith is based on a misunderstanding of that faith. And so it is with Islam, which PuffHo, about as Regressive Leftist as a site can be, is constantly trying to show us is really a Religion of Peace.
Of course for some Muslims it is, but overall it’s also very authoritarian, and rife with bigotry and oppression, something you can easily see if you look at the Pew Survey of the World’s Muslims that came out three years ago. The survey didn’t really involve all the world’s Muslims, for they didn’t question the citizens of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Iran—for obvious reasons! So the results are skewed towards a more “moderate” Islam, and even then they’re still scary. Have a look at my post from May of that year to see the substantial number of Muslims in the 38 countries surveyed who favor sharia law, stoning as punishment for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, as well as the view that homosexuality is immoral and a wife must always obey her husband. The picture is not one of a tolerant, peaceful, and welcoming faith, but a repressive and intolerant one.
The data speak for themselves, but people resolutely ignore it, even though, had they surveyed Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, things would have looked even worse. Seriously, would you consider the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia a desirable, conciliatory faith? PuffHo couldn’t even put out much of its stuff in that land!
Well, the site wants to ignore these inconvenient truths in its mission to pretend that all Muslims adhere to a wonderful faith. Have a look at its April 6 article, for instance: “Here are 4 concepts in Islam Muslims wish you’d talk about more” (or click on the screenshot below, for it’s largely a video). To show that Muslims are mostly peaceful and tolerant, they interviewed exactly five adherents:
For years, Islam has been misunderstood and politicized by American pundits and politicians. The consequences of this climate are evident in the growing number of anti-Muslim incidents that are occurring across the country. Although it’s ridiculously unfair burden to put on American Muslim communities, Muslim activists and organizations have repeatedly and unequivocally denounced terrorism in all forms and stood up to defend their faith.
Muslim Americans have had to spend a lot of time talking about what Islam isn’t. So it’s important for allies and others who seek to understand the community to listen in closely when they talk about what Islam is — the theology and practices that make this religion so precious to its followers.
HuffPost Rise invited five Muslim Americans to talk about concepts within Islam that they wish more people knew about. The participants spoke about ideas of justice, mercy, community, and diversity.
Have a gander:
What you hear is that Islam (and not just Islam in America!) is balanced, merciful, compassionate, that its adherents don’t hold animus against a wrongdoer (!!), and that the faith promotes comity among all nations as well as tolerance among people with different views.
Well, yes, these five cherry-picked, smiling, and Westernized Muslims believe these things, but it just isn’t true. Have a look at the degree of “tolerance” evinced on one front: tolerance of those who leave Islam. Here are the Pew data:
And look at the original survey. What you’ll realize is that PuffHo is dissimulating: using hand-picked Muslims to pretend that there’s not a darker side of the faith. PuffHo is in fact lying—through omission.
Let us always be aware that there are those in the media who want to signal their virtue by putting out the message that Islam is a lovely, peaceful, and tolerant faith. For some it is, but for many it’s not. The Muslims who are making trouble are not the Westernized group trotted out in the video above, but those who embrace the forms of intolerance and repression that are so common in the Pew Survey.
Shame on PuffHo, and on all those who distort the data on faith (I’m looking at you, Karen Armstrong) to paint religion as a positive force in this world.
It’s like HUFF Post is the go to place to get the good propaganda on Islam, just as Fox news is the place to go for non-stop republican filling for your pastry. I can’t remember when one side of the story became news and fact. The commercial for these places should just say, Hey stupid, look over here.
Ah! The film uses terms like merciful, compassion (every day), etc. How do they square that with “stoning as punishment for adultery”? I wonder how many PuffHo staff writers and editors are nervous about that part of Islam?
Re: “The tenor of the site is to argue that all faith is good, and any criticism of faith is based on a misunderstanding of that faith.”
Would/do they say that about Scientology??
Or about the Aztec religion.
Karima Bennoune’s book “Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here” provides some fascinating and disturbing insights into Muslims living under the tyranny of Islamic extremism. She is critical of the political Left’s tone deaf stance that dismisses Muslim on Muslim violence as purely colonial or societal, having nothing to do with religion.
“The tenor of the site is to argue that all faith is good, and any criticism of faith is based on a misunderstanding of that faith. ”
I wonder if this is really a reflection of a postmodern point of view, where there is no such thing as objective truth, and claims of fact are merely tools in the struggle for power? It would explain why so many of these people have no qualms about distorting the views of others…any actions that undermine the power of one’s enemy are moral.
Of course, it immediately provokes the “fundamental problem of subjectivism”, namely how can one even make sense of a notion of misunderstanding if there is no notion of objective truth?
My reading of the philosophy is that their arguments don’t need to make sense from their own perspective….the arguments just need to accomplish their goals, which is to damage the powerful.
What Muslims have to recognize is that every part of Islam that is worth saving is basically the philosophy of being polite, being kind, and being calm, both inside and outside.
You do not need a religion to tell you these things and along the way you get the added benefit of not restricting women from wearing a swim suits.
When people tell me religion makes them a better kinder person I point out
1) If they were empathetic they wouldn’t need religion.
2) If religion makes them behave kindly, they’re not really a kind person.
That’s when the name calling starts.
Well put.
Exactly. Religion stands or falls on what makes it distinctive, not what it shares with virtually every other religion or philosophy. If the true nature of Islam is humanism, then Islam as Islam is in trouble … and the world is better off.
This general rule would apply to most areas, I think. It’s not very helpful to be told that so-and-so the political candidate is in favor of good government, traffic safety, and happy holidays for all.
But how can anyone know what the “true” nature of Islam is? I constantly see pundits, politicians (Obama, e.g.), and my many liberal friends on facebook (I don’t have many who are on the right) tell me that ISIS is not “true” Islam and the KKK are not “true” Christians. I never get an answer when I ask who is the authority that gets to decide which of the 60+ sects of Islam, or the (hundreds?) of sects of Christianity are the one and only “true” one. No matter what religious sect you are in, you believe that it is the one true one. In theory, the pope is supposed to tell you which is the “true” catholic church, but that has not fared so well over the years as groups break away all the time. Even a young religion like Mormonism splintered early on into multiple sects all of which claim to be the “true” Mormons. Joseph Smith’s descendants are, as I understand, not members of the main Mormon church, but rather joined the Reformed LDS church.
And that includes those easy, ecumenical, faith-leveling “God doesn’t care whether or how you worship” plumped-up versions, too. They have God RIGHT and the sectarian fundamentalists have God WRONG. There’s no getting on the outside of that elephant.
I think there may be a political reason for articles such as this. People of a generally liberal bent are afraid that any articles that present the negative side of Islam will stir up anti-Islamic fervor (such as that displayed by Trump and Cruz supporters) that could result in domestic unrest and the call for more American military involvement in the Middle East. Thus, to “keep the lid on the pot,” liberal organs such as the Huffington Post continually present pro-Islam arguments. The picture it paints of Islam is hardly balanced, but may be necessary as a counterweight to the shrill and dangerous tirades of the right wing.
I think you’re probably right. I also think there’s a feeling among the religious that they have to stick together in the face of a rise in scepticism. Where once religions fought wars over things like transubstantiation, now they embrace each other in the face of a greater threat.
Anywhere a single religion has power though, they go back to persecuting every other religion and forcing their beliefs on everybody. They also restrict access to information so the people can’t, or find it difficult to, even find out about other points of view.
Religion needs secularism to keep it reasonable.
And religion needs atheism to keep it honest…
I’m not sure “religion” and “honest” belong in the same sentence.
Yes!
“The picture it paints of Islam is hardly balanced, but may be necessary as a counterweight to the shrill and dangerous tirades of the right wing.”
The problem is that the picture they paint is so obviously a dishonest one that rather than tempering “the shrill and dangerous tirades of the right wing” it drives people into the right wing camp. While the right wing exaggerates the problem, and their solutions extreme they are at least acknowledging the problem exists.
I wanted to add an analogy. If one side says global warming doesn’t exists, and the other says it’s going to kill us all in our lifetime unless we force everyone to buy electric cars, and use bicycles if they can, who are you going to be more inclined to side with?
I’ve heard plenty of the former but never the later. Global warming will not kill many people directly, but it will likely set up conditions for conflict that could kill people or cause famine that will, but not so much in out lifetime.
“Global warming will not kill many people directly, but it will likely set up conditions for conflict that could kill people or cause famine that will, but not so much in out lifetime.”
I agree completely. The point of my analogy was to illustrate extremes. Which extreme position is more reasonable, or a better starting position, that global warming is a myth, or one that’s an overreaction. I would say the latter, because then at least you’re acknowledging it’s a problem.
Pay attention that the other side rarely talks about population control. I think this is one of the reasons why the global warming theory finds so little acceptance among the public.
sub
I miss the days of my youth when journalists actually existed, and valued their reputation for honesty, and objectivity above all else.
H.L Mencken?
Reblogged this on PACIFIC ISLAND BEACON.
I watched the video and thought that most fundamentalist Christians could and would make the same points re the value of justice, accountability, diversity, forgiveness, worship, getting to know one another, and forming strong, supportive communities. Christians who believe nonchristians are eternally damned and want to eliminate the separation of church and state can and do make the same positive, happy talking points which sound so fine on the surface — and they usually mean them, too.
But get away from casual encounters and general virtues and it turns out that HOW people specifically interpret what it means to “love God” within those glowing parameters can make a huge difference. So I’m not even sure the video needs to cherry pick or whitewash much. Islamists who call for death for blasphemy also smile and speak of love for their neighbors and the need to be charitable and kind. The devil is always in the details.
+ 1
“…this climate are evident in the growing number of anti-Muslim incidents”
I have never seen such a warped sense of victimhood, not even out of conservative Christians. Over 3000 people have died this century thus far from domestic Islamic terror incidents, with untold numbers of potential victims from foiled plots. Christian abortion killers have killed 4 in the same span.
Even if we counted every person Islam apologists ever claimed was killed due to Islamophobia regardless of the evidence (e.g. the Chapel Hill murders), how many would we have? I can only think of a handful of incidents. The fact our ears aren’t ringing with that number (like “1.6 Billion People”) is proof of how low it is.
In fact I’d say I’ve seen more women killed for not complying with Islamic gender roles in North America than Islamophobic murders when the ratio of Muslim to non-Muslims is like 1:99.
Also all crimes of every type are a “growing number,” as in n+1. The number of crimes only increases. It cannot unhappen and thus decrease. If they mean trends, then present real data not narratives.
Does anyone know what percentage of muslims, in these countries, want sharia law?
Just follow the link in the post “Have a look at my post from May of that year”
Most of the high percentage countries have Sharia values of 70-80%, so Egypt, for example, would be adjusted to about 60% – still a high value.
The problem with terrorism with regard to discussing Islam is that the conversation generally ends with the accurate announcement that most Muslims are against it. The conversation needs to then talk about the terrible aspects of Islam that many/most muslims support, like punishing apostasy and blasphemy.
🐜