Strangely you have failed to provide any evidence of this or any actual understanding of how Muslims and Muslim scholars study, debate and ultimately interpret the Quran, Haddiths and related texts - probably because you keep assuming that anti-Muslim sites are completely unbiased and totally correct.
Probably, since that is what the evidence points towards when you look at how Muslim nations run (when not being terrorized for oil), what values Islam promotes (harmony, prayer, charity, etc) and that you have yet to find a significant piece of evidence to the contrary that wasn't manufactured by someone rushing to validate their confirmation bias.
If you think it's just an ideology then why bother discussing it? Unless people judge one another based off perception of this ideology and that can result in people being beaten, denied access to their homes, held in prison camps rather given refugee rights, or even being murdered in acts of terrorism.
A better idea is to perhaps look at a whole bunch of sources that disagree with each other, then try to way up how complex the issue is and what kinds of biases drive people to particular interpretations.
I am saying academia by white people that supports other white people gets more funding and promotion, because the big institutions are all funded and governed by old white men. That includes universities, media, research centers and government institutions that give out grants. I got my bachelor degree and have no interest in returning, however I have a friend who's an actual professor of Chemistry that works in two universities (one in Australia, one in China) if that helps you in any way.
Why should it? Ben Carson's is a neurosurgeon and that hasn't helped him understand literally anything about the world or the actual function of the brain (he thinks he can put electrodes in your head and make you recite books you read). Since Harris hasn't studied the brains of the people he vilifies or the actual extremists (good luck getting Daesh to agree to a scan and questionnaire) it seems unlikely this offers him any insight beyond irrelevant credentials people are likely to use to falsely inflate his authority.
Harris should never be taken seriously regardless of his demographic, but the reason he is taken seriously is he has the image of an authoritive figure and being white helps him with that. Notice Maher doesn't have many Asian or Black critics of Islam on his show. Carol M. Swain for example. (I don't endorse her views, I just don't kid myself about why she's not more widely promoted)
I see you're still grabbing random verses out of context with the harshest possible translation. Does this mean you assume all Christians think it's okay to offer your daughters to angry mobs to protect house guests?
After all, that's a direct quote from Lot, who is a hero in the Bible.
It's like this criticism is founded in some sort of bias and received support because it's convenient to promote negative views of Islam, thus dehumanizing the people who have their lives destroyed so that we can continue to receive cheap oil... it's like the term "propaganda" should be used here.
Yes, see this began with you announcing that Islam is hostile, and has been twisted into peace even though the type of Islam (which is rejected by most other Muslims) that is linked to systemic violence is generally traced back to a philosophy that only appeared in the 18th century when many people decided the existing model of Islam was too passive to properly deal with the (Christian) colonialists.
That is, as far as most historians who aren't tripping over themselves to blame Muslims the actual source and root of modern Islamic violence, a need to repel Christians who were trying to strip them of their culture.
So far your evidence of this is that you can find a bunch of web sites that agree with you and you feel they should be treated as sound sources even though it takes only casual examination to find they have alternative agendas and are prone to misrepresenting information (and outright lying).
The problem here becomes largely that while this is fine in principle, historically it's done a very bad job of protecting people targeted by people like Richard Spencer - who directly promotes violence while claiming it's non-violent (literally just adding the word "non-violent" to his statements).
But Spencer's supporters have done many violent in things in the US. They are, by far, much more violent than any of the demographics they advocate for the deportation (violent relocation), sterlization (violent denial of human rights) or refusal to grant refugee status to (which is the violent denial of human rights and the violent support of alternative violence). And that's without factoring in those acting as part of the system.
Clearly the system in place has failed to prevent violence by these people and also failed to prevent them using the government itself as an instrument of violence against marginalized people. At what point then does it become acceptable for those people to strike back without being equated to those murdering them?
Shouldn't that society's failure to protect it's citizens from systemic violence from within and outside of the system be a higher priority than worrying about a guy getting popped in the face due his participation in the overall machine?