Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This week’s comic was provoked by an article written by the Rev Giles Fraser. If you can bear it, here it is.
It’s a piece by Fraser in the Guardian, “Assimilation threatens the existence of other cultures,” that begins this way and then goes downhill:
This week a doctor from north London was telling me about one of his patients, a lad of 20 who has lived in the borough of Hackney all his life. He was born here and grew up here. And he’s a bright boy – yet he speaks only a few very rudimentary words of English. The language he speaks at home and at school is Yiddish. Some may be appalled by the insularity of the community in which this young man was raised. But I admire it. In particular, I admire the resilience of a community that seeks to maintain its distinctiveness and recognises, quite rightly, that assimilation into the broader culture would mean the gradual dilution, and the eventual extinction, of its own way of life. It is no surprise to me that the ultra orthodox are thriving, with high birth rates and predictions that they will be constitute a majority of the Jewish population within 20 years. They have refused assimilation.
It adds immeasurably to the richness and diversity of how life is apprehended that not everyone sees the world in the same way. It is mind-expanding to be challenged by those who commit to another way of life. What a miserably grey one-dimensional place it would be if the dominant model of middle-of-the-road liberal secular capitalism became the only acceptable way of living.
And Jesus’s point is right on the money. It goes without saying that plenty of people have partly assimilated, retaining good parts of their culture while abjuring the bad. Restricting Jewish kids from any exposure to secular culture, or even the secular world, does not increase the diversity of life; it restricts the exposure of kids to that diversity and narrows their choices in life.
What Fraser is really getting at, of course, is Islam, as is clear in his last paragraph:
Of course, the barely concealed target of Casey’s report is Muslims. They are serial offenders in their resistance to the hegemony of integration. They won’t allow the Borg-like values of secular liberalism to corrode their distinctiveness. They seek to maintain their religious convictions and way of life. They refuse all that nonsense about religion being a private matter. They stand strong against the elimination of diversity. And we are all immeasurably richer for their resistance.
“Borg-like values of secular liberalism”? What about the repressive values of Islam: its rejection of gays and apostates, and its pervasive oppression of women. Do we want that kind of diversity?
The Guardian is increasingly becoming a liberal defender of illiberalism. It is the Huffington Post of the UK.
I was going to post the third part of my piece on sexual dimorphism in human traits (other parts here and here), explaining why that physical dimorphism suggests that current behavioral differences between the sexes also reflect evolution in our ancestors (and why those who oppose a sexual-selection explanation are ideologically motivated)—but I have a few more papers to read. Look for it (if you’re interested) tomorrow.
In the meantime, let’s consider the Illiberal Leftist lucubrations of Mr. Hasan Piker, identified on Puffho as “an entertainment and political journalist known for his explainer videos on The Young Turks that provide detailed analysis on the top news stories of the day. Aside from covering pop culture news on TYT’s entertainment channel, Pop Trigger, Hasan is also a regular contributor on Buzzfeed and TMZ’s TooFab.”
As we know, The Young Turks (TYT) is a popular “leftist” online news show, but one that has grown increasingly illiberal in its attacks on New Atheists and its noisome sympathy for all kinds of Islam.
In his new PuffHo piece of Muslim apologetics, “Why suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam“, Piker has a hard case to make. Nothing to do with Islam? NOTHING? Even if religion were an ancillary factor here (and there’s clearly more than simply Muslim theology involved), one would have to wonder whether suicide bombings of the kind we see regularly committed by Muslims (most against other Muslims) would be as frequent. After all, if religion has nothing to do with it, then if we eliminate religion, the frequency of those bombings wouldn’t change.
Piker’s thesis, as you might expect, betrays a naiveté with both what the Qur’an and hadith say, and how religion twists and manipulates its scripture to justify anything. We are, of course, well familiar with that in the Bible, which—particularly in the Old Testament, repeatedly justifies misogyny, genocide, and the killing of gays, those who curse their parents, or people who work on the Sabbath. If we adhered to a strict interpretation of Scripture, then we’d be murdering everyone working on Saturday. But we ignore that completely, and anybody who did these things, adhering to God’s dictates in the Old Testament, would be decried and jailed. If you’re following the Bible strictly, though, you’d kill your child if he said, “Damn you, Dad!” Now, of course, we don’t look down on those who fail follow the Bible in this way; we don’t call them “not good Christians.”
But this is exactly what Piker does when he quotes the Qur’an to show that suicide bombing is not Islamic because—get this—Islam prohibits suicide. Yes, this is what he says:
Suicide bombings have been around since the 18th century, but I want to talk about suicide bombings as a tool of modern terrorist warfare and how it became the archetype of Muslim violence. Because while popular culture depicts Muslims as trigger-happy suicide bombers, suicide has always been a cardinal sin in Islam.
I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.
. . . While the Shia interpretation of the Quran offers some leeway around self-harm to allow for self-sacrifice, the Sunni interpretation strictly prohibited it.
Also, until this point only occupying combatants had been targeted, whereas now civilians were being victimized.
Suicide or Martyrdom in the Quran
By contrast, martyrdom – or when Allah decides when you die in battle while protecting your country – is sanctioned in certain verses throughout the Quran.
Frequently cited is the Al-Baqara verse:
“And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.”
I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.
So here he gets to the real issue—martyrdom—but later calls it a “perverted version of Islam.” As that verse shows, as well the ones cited below and others, there is justification for suicide in the Qur’an, if you do it in the course of fighting for Allah. And that’s all that Piker says about that.
Piker goes on, noting that some Muslim clerics and leaders began justifying suicide bombing against Israelis, for they were occupiers:
Sunni extremists’ adoption of suicide bombing that targeted civilians proved critical. Once attacks against civilians could be justified, the words in the Quran no longer meant anything. According to a 2012 study published in the National Counterterrorism Center, Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year where. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities.
This perverted version of Islam that upends more than a thousand years of a consensus interpretation of the Quran has been used to indoctrinate youths in countries crippled by war.
One might as well call the perfectly clear Biblical call to kill your children who curse you as “a perverted version of Christianity.” In fact, the Qu’ran is full of verses extolling those who fight for Allah, and give their lives for that. They go to Paradise, of course. It’s not a stretch to construe countries like Israel and the U.S. as enemies of Allah; and once you see that, then the way is clear. No perverted theology involved.
And so, without going further into how suicide bombers like the 9/11 group actually justify their actions, or whether they see a connection between their acts and Islam, Piker exculpates the religion. But . . . he sort of admits that connection toward the end of his piece (my emphasis):
In states where citizens have very little access to the basic amenities that many governments elsewhere provide, young people with nowhere else to turn seek answers from religious leaders. And those religious leaders are not shy about pointing the finger of blame at western occupying forces and justifying attacks against fellow muslims as a means of advancing their own agendas.
. . . While power-hungry religious clerics – and other Islamic leaders – have promoted suicide bombings as a justifiable tool of war, the majority of Muslims condemn it – just like the Quran does.
Suicide bombings have always been used to achieve political ends and have nothing to do with waging holy war, no matter what western media, Islam’s critics or religious clerics will have you believe. The attack committed by the PKK on Turkish soil is merely the latest example. Religion is simply a recruitment tool targeting the undereducated, the vulnerable and the disaffected…a violent means for a violent end.
Umm. . . why do the youth turn to religious leaders rather than their parents? Why is religion such a potent recruitment tool? That has nothing to do with religion? And why are Sunni and Shia in such conflict, regularly killing each other? Because the Sunni and Shia disagree on who were the rightful heirs of Muhammed—the original cause of that schism. Were there no Islam, there would be no such division. Further, like the divide between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, religion (in this case Islam) gives people a way of “othering” others and building animosity toward them. Sure, the killers might not be aware of the finer points of Islamic theology, but all they need to know is that someone with authority—religious authority—sanctions their acts. The religion is important because it assures you of an afterlife, something you need if you’re going to throw away your real life.
But that’s not the main failing of Piker’s piece. That failing is this: those Muslims who engage in suicide bombing, or promote it, don’t see it as suicide—they see it as MARTYRDOM. Suicide is just offing yourself; suicide bombing is a way to destroy your enemy, please Allah, and gain virgins in Paradise. That this can be even more explicitly religious is seen in the way the 9/11 bombers purified themselves and recited the Qur’an before their deeds.
And martyrdom can be justified by referring to both the Qur’an and the hadith. This site gives many examples; I’ll show just two:
Qur’an 9-111. Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.
Qur-an 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.
11. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!
12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.
And from the hadith, the traditional sayings of Muhammad, which have great authority. The Sahih Bukhari is particularly important.
Sahih Bukhari Book 52, Number 54:
The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.
Sahih Bukhari (52:46)- “Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Low hanging fruit but eh! Article by Hasan Piker, of The Young Turks
There are more, and believe me, between the hadith and the Qur’an, Islamic clerics and scholars have found ample justification for suicide bombing, and it’s never not just self-killing but “martyrdom” in the cause of Allah—martyrdom that gains one paradise. And those believers really think they’ll go to Paradise! For Piker to underplay this is mendacious and misleading, but of course his task is to show that nothing badcan be laid at the door of Islam itself.
Well, today we have PuffHo applauding Obama’s refusal to call ISIS “Islamic terrorism” (I suppose that means they don’t like Hillary Clinton calling it that, as—to her credit—she did). Click on the screenshot to see the “really good reason”:
Here it is:
At a CNN town hall event on Wednesday, a Gold Star mother asked Obama why he does’t use the term “Islamic terrorist.” Obama explained that he avoids it “to make sure that we do not lump these murderers into the billion Muslims that exist around the world, including in this country, who are peaceful, who are responsible, who, in this country, are fellow troops and police officers and fire fighters and teachers and neighbors and friends.”
“These are people who’ve killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves, there’s no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do,” he said of groups like ISIS. “If you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said, ‘We’re on the vanguard of Christianity.’ As a Christian, I’m not going to let them claim my religion and say, ‘you’re killing for Christ.’ I would say, that’s ridiculous. That’s not what my religion stands for. Call these folks what they are, which is killers and terrorists.”
Well, of course if you refuse to even say the word Islam as a motivation for terrorism (something that Maajid Nawaz calls “The Voldemort Effect”), then you can deal with it only with bombs and guns: the option of promoting moderate Islam, or engaging in dialogue with Muslims, is simply off the table. As for there being “no religious rationale” justifying any of the things that ISIS does, Obama is either completely ignorant or lying. ISIS has provided plenty of religious rationale; does Obama think he knows better?
And, of course there’s the daily paean to the hijab in PuffHo:
This clip was produced by a group of Israelis who did satirical cabaret, making fun of sacred cows. (The language is Hebrew with English subtitles.) The cow in this short video is the FBI’s attitudes toward Islamic terrorism; the Boston FBI locale and Chechen perpetrators make clear that this is about the Boston Marathon bombing. (The video was also made in 2013).
This film, in fact, couldn’t be shown on Israeli television, which by and large is so Regressive Leftist that it wouldn’t countenance this kind of satire. But it’s funny, and certainly has a grain of truth. Malgorzata found it and put the subtitles in Polish, which you can see, if you wish, by pressing the cc button.
The Canadian ex-Muslim Eiynah, also known as “Nice Mangos” —it’s telling that many ex-Muslims, but not ex-Jews or ex-Catholics, must hide their identity—drew my attention to an article in Time Magazine with this tw**t:
If this was a "show the power of xtianity" article, we'd all cringe. Religion…stop glorifying it cuz minority pic.twitter.com/cy3G7lbnM5
And Eiynah’s right with her claim that similar displays by Christians would be cringe-worthy. In fact, we don’t even have to speculate about it: we already have an example in the form of “Tebowing.” Tim Tebow, a former quarterback for the Denver Broncos, used to drop to his knees on the field after a victory, genuflecting and thanking the nonexistent god he loved so fervently. Here’s one of his poses. He did this so often that it became a meme, and a subject of national debate.
And indeed, a lot of people liked Tebow’s behavior, for there are always those who prize public displays of Christianity. Indeed, at the University of Florida, Tebow used to wear Biblical verses on the black pigment that quarterbacks often wear under their eyes (supposedly to stop sun glare). You can look up this verse for yourself.
Credit Chris Graythen/Getty Images
But, as the New York Times recounts, there was plenty of criticism of this excessive religiosity as well, with Tebow being seen by some as a “religious nut job.” There’s even a a website that mocks his gesture, showing people Tebowing all over the globe. So yes, there’s not universal approbation for public displays of Christianity on the athletic field.
But there is for Islam. We’ve already seen the huge outpouring of enthusiasm for Ibtihaj Muhammad, the American who fenced in the Olympics wearing a hijab. Even Hillary Clinton tweeted about that, even though there was nothing courageous or heroic about Muhammad’s act, and in the end she turned out to be a pretty nasty exponent of anti-Semitism. There’s nothing to celebrate about an athlete from the U.S. wearing religious garb during the Olympics, particularly a garment that is a symbol of oppression: of a religion that views women as temptresses who can incite men’s uncontrollable lust by showing a wisp of hair. Yes, women have the right, or should, to wear hijabs everywhere, and some even claim to do it by “choice”—although what does that mean when there’s often severe social pressure by family and peers to conform? But let’s not deem the wearing of headscarves to be “heroic”. What would be “heroic” would be a woman in Iran or Saudi Arabia—where wearing the head-shackle is mandatory—to take it off in public.
But of course the Western media, even on the Left, have bought into Islamic exceptionalism: what would be cringe-worthy or mocked if it were done by Christians or Jews is seen as wonderful when done by Muslims. This is done out of fear—fear of two sorts. Fear that one could be attacked physically for criticizing or not sufficiently deferring to a religion whose adherents have made “I’m offended” their trademark, and fear that one will be called a bigot for not sufficiently osculating the Oppressed. It all stinks, for it’s all about celebrating the inimical effects of religion on human behavior.
But according to the latest venue to osculate Islam, Time magazine, the religion is all positive. Have a look at this headline below (click the screenshot to go to the site)
My first temptation is to say one could write a counter-headline: “20 beheadings and 5 gays thrown off buildings show the negative power of Islam.” But, that aside, I bet that Time hasn’t used examples from the Olympics to show the positive power of Christianity or Judaism! Nope, it’s Islam that must be coddled and its “positive power” extolled at all costs.
Time gives three examples, and maybe the first one does show a salubrious influence of the faith on one athlete, Mo Farah, who won the men’s 10,000-meter dash. I quote from Time:
After he crossed the finish line, Farah fell on the track again—this time to pray. He bowed his head before a stadium of adoring spectators. That performance was just as dramatic as racing past Kenya’s Paul Kipngetich Tanui to win this third gold medal.
Farah’s prayer can help counter the damaging stereotypes of Muslims held by many around the world. For Farah, and scores of Muslim athletes, faith is not incidental, but central to their excellence in sport. “I normally pray before a race,” Farah said. “I read du’aa [Islamic prayers or invocations] think about how hard I’ve worked and just go for it.”
First of all, it’s not a stereotype of Muslims, at least one I’m familiar with, that their faith is “incidental”. We all know that it’s one of the faiths most closely bound up with politics and social lives. As far as Farah’s performance is concerned, maybe his faith had something to do with it, but we don’t know for sure. He feels it does, but that’s not even evidence for a placebo effect. All Time can really say is that Mo Farah prays before he races, and he won.
What about athletes who don’t pray before they race, because they’re atheists, and they win too? Would you say that shows the “positive power of atheism”? Does Michael Phelps’s stupendous performance in the Olympics show “the amazing power of cupping”?Why wouldn’t Time write that? What about an athlete who wins wearing his lucky shoes? Would Time say “Olympic athlete shows positive power of lucky shoes”?
Britain’s Mo Farah celebrates winning the Men’s 10,000m during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on Aug. 13, 2016. Photo: Frank Fife, Getty AFP Images.
Time‘s example number 2 is a hijab-wearing weightlifter from Egypt:
Donning all black with a red headscarf, the colors of her nation, the diminutive [Sara] Ahmed lifted a combined weight of 255kg (562lbs) to claim the bronze medal in the 69kg weight class. The feat, given her nationality and ethnicity, was unprecedented. Ahmed became an instant icon in her native Egypt, becoming the first female medalist in the nation’s 104-year history in Olympics’ competition and the first Arab woman to win an Olympic medal in weightlifting.
As she bowed her head to receive her medal, Ahmed represented world-class power, strength and Muslim womanhood, disrupting tropes that have enabled headscarf bans in France and trite oppression narratives in America and elsewhere.
Time doesn’t report anything that Ahmed said about her faith. She just wore a hijab when lifting. How does that show the positive power of Islam? We see here Time’s virtue signaling: “See, we’re not racists because we love those who wear hijabs!” And, of course, Time doesn’t point out how in places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, women are deliberately weakened by the state—on religious grounds.
The last example is Ibtihaj Muhammad:
Ibtihaj Muhammad was a star in the Muslim American community long before she stepped onto the global scene. But her story was about far more than being “the first U.S. Olympian to wear a hijab during competition.” She championed a cause long-ignored by non-Muslims and Muslims alike: the distinct experience of African American Muslims and the distinct perils often created by intersecting racism and Islamophobia.
The other cause she champions, which Time didn’t mention, is to promulgate lies about Israel on her social media site (they were pointed out to her, but she refused to retract them). But that means nothing alongside the fact that she wore a hijab and is considered “oppressed”. (I don’t find much evidence for that.) Yes, kudos to her for her persistence, but in the end, she became a fencer because no other sport was open to a woman who refused to remove her hijab. Had she doffed that symbol, she could have played any sport she wanted. The hijab limits women, even when they wear it “by choice”.
