Anyone who has read GetReligion for more than a month probably knows that I have always been concerned about the lack of press coverage of endangered religious minorities in large parts of the world — including nations such as Afghanistan.
It’s crucial to remember, when talking about religious freedom issues and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that it is tragically common for members of a major world religion to punish other members of their own faith because of strong disagreements about doctrine and tradition. It is common to see persecution of those who have no faith — think atheists and agnostics — as well as those who have converted to a new faith.
As a reminder, here is Article 18 of that landmark United Nations document:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
With all of that in mind, it’s easy to understand why I was interested in this headline atop a New York Times report: “The Taliban holds first meeting of religious leaders since taking Kabul.”
The key, of course, is the meaning of these two words — “religious leaders.”
If you follow news updates, you know that the ancient Jewish community in Afghanistan is long gone — unless merchant Zablon Simintov chose to attend this meeting. Was there a Catholic representative at the meeting? Were leaders of the growing underground church invited? Did they dare to come out of hiding? What about the Muslim leaders of progressive (for lack of a better word) mosques who cooperated with Western leaders during the past 20 years?
Who were these “religious leaders”? Let’s walk through some key parts of this short story:
The Taliban held their first meeting of religious leaders since retaking Afghanistan’s capital last week, laying out guidelines about religious instructions to hundreds of the nation’s imams and religious school instructors.
Taliban leaders, including their spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, took turns speaking at the Loya Jirga Hall on Monday, from a stage that was still decorated with the tricolor flag of the fallen Afghan government. The conference’s title, which included the “promotion of virtue and prevention of vice,” was reminiscent of language used by Taliban’s religious police when they ruled the country in the late 1990s.
OK, we haven’t learned anything, have we?
Consider the term “religious schools.” There have been quite a few kinds of religious schools in urban Afghanistan during the past 20 years.
Let’s keep reading.
The Taliban have pledged to allow women to work and girls to attend schools, and have said they offered a general amnesty to everyone loyal to the former government.
Girls can “attend schools,” but what kind of schools? The Times team still hasn’t answered the essential question that hovers over the headline of this story. Who or what is a “religious leader” in Afghanistan, these days?
“We invited you here today to talk about your role in this system,” Mawlawi Mohammad Shafiq Khatib, one of the organizers of the conference, said to the participants at the meeting. Whatever religious leaders “say that is compatible with Shariah and the principles of Islam, the people must heed. We are thankful to God that we have an Islamic system now.”
Now we finally have the information that we need. “This system” is one in which “religious leaders” act in ways that are “compatible with Shariah and the principles of Islam.”
Obviously, this means acting in ways that are compatible with Shariah as interpreted by the Taliban. This is made clear a few lines later.
The Taliban leaders at the conference in Kabul indicated that school curriculum would be changing to fall in line with their teaching and that there would be more information soon about the overall structure of the educational system.
Thus, here is my journalism question: Shouldn’t the headline, at the very least, have said, “The Taliban holds first meeting of ISLAMIC leaders since taking Kabul.” But that wording would have been simplistic, as well. This was a meeting for Islamic leaders and educators who were planning to work in the Taliban’s new Sharia system. Many other Muslim leaders are in hiding, right now.
Why not say that? Why use such vague language throughout this story?
Let me take a stab at this. Ever since 9/11, journalists have struggled to deliver two messages about Islam. First, there is this: “Islam is a religion of peace.” Then there is the second message: “There is no one Islam.”
The problem, of course, is that these two messages clash. It is certainly true that, for millions of Muslims, Islam is a “religion of peace.” However, for millions of others — ISIS and the Taliban come to mind — “peace” means “submission” and it is completely logical to use whatever force is necessary to bring that kind of “peace” to as many lands, cultures and people as possible. Apostates must live in “peace.”
That tension is real, obviously. There is no one Islam. There are massive splits and disagreements inside of this great, complex world religion. That is part of this story, like it or not.
Why didn’t the Times team clearly define “religious leaders” in this story? Can readers understand what is happening in Afghanistan right now, and what will almost certainly happen in the weeks and months ahead, without know the facts about who is in hiding and who is assuming control?
Why avoid these issues in this kind of story?
Just asking.
FIRST IMAGE: From a Pinterest collection of quotations about Islam.