Liberal opinion of Bill Maher's views on Islam...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's kind of funny how the Sunni = Protestant, Shia = Catholic analogy continues to work in that both the best and worst Muslims are Sunni.

[Sbane]

Excuse me , but are we really going to pretend as if Bill Maher knows what the hell he is talking about?  He really doesn't know sh**t. Sam Harris on the other hand has touched upon an excellent topic. Wahabbism needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately, Sam Harris does not realize this. He is too busy sh**tting on muslims to get it.

Could you quote me the stuff Harris has said that you think is offensive?  The dude is an atheist who doesn't think that restrictive religions are good for the world, but I imagine that's not what you mean by "sh**tting on Muslims."

Wahhabism is actually a huge threat to western democracy and it would be nice if people like Sam Harris, who are obviously well educated, would present the threat in a matter which is appropriate. Trying to fight against 1.5 Billion people is futile, especially considering that 99% of those people care about their own quality of life, as opposed to what is going on in the world around them. Attacking Islam is ridiculous. Might as well attack Judaism for advocating stoning gays. I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Why?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Excuse me , but are we really going to pretend as if Bill Maher knows what the hell he is talking about?  He really doesn't know sh**t. Sam Harris on the other hand has touched upon an excellent topic. Wahabbism needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately, Sam Harris does not realize this. He is too busy sh**tting on muslims to get it.

Could you quote me the stuff Harris has said that you think is offensive?  The dude is an atheist who doesn't think that restrictive religions are good for the world, but I imagine that's not what you mean by "sh**tting on Muslims."

Sam Harris frequently conflates Islam with Wahabbism and Islam with Islamism. I agree with bedstuy that the distinction between good Islam and bad Islam is not as sharp as it's often made out to be but it goes without saying that it's offensive and counterproductive to overgeneralize like Harris does. Harris refers to "the Doctrine of Islam" and has said "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

[Alcon]

Outside of the last line of this statement, I strongly disagree. I sense that this is the root of our disagreement and explains why you believe that it's "weird" that I think that Islamism is a perversion of Islam. I don't believe that any faith is merely a set of texts and teachings. I'm going to be "that guy" and quote Durkheim: "Religion is eminently social. Religious representations are collective representations which express collective realities." If religion is "eminently social", it goes without saying that Islam as practiced in Bangladesh or Indonesia differs radically from Islam as practiced in Saudia Arabia.

In the United States, just two centuries ago, both slave owners and abolitionists not only used the same Bible to justify their conflicting viewpoints, they used the exact same verses. That’s the power of scripture, it’s the power of religion: It’s infinitely malleable. We do not read scriptures that were written 5000 years ago still because they’re true — we read them because they’re malleable, because they can address the ever-evolving need of a community, of an individual, because they can be shaped to whatever one’s political ideology is. You have Christians in the hills of Guatemala who view Jesus as a liberating warrior who takes up arms against the oppressor, and Christians in midwestern Chicago who believe that Jesus wants you to drive a Bentley. Who’s right? They both are! That’s why Jesus matters.

It's not sufficient to note that there are different interpretations to claim that the text's content has no influence on the interpretation.  That's also in line with what I'm arguing.

Are you claiming that the contents of scripture/teaching has absolutely no influence on people's views, and they just superimpose whatever their culture tells them to believe on the scripture?  And that variances in scripture do not influence anyone's belief in any way?  I don't think that's a remotely reasonable claim.

I agree that a lot of the variance in religious belief is because people decide what beliefs are "good" and then force their religious beliefs to align with it.  However, the relationship is clearly reciprocal.  People articulate "good," in part, based on what culture and religious authority tells them is good.  If your religious book says "don't eat fish," someone claiming that's "good" will have an easier time than someone trying to claim it's elaborate metaphor.

If you don't believe this, you'll have to tell me why.  There is a ton of unequivocal evidence about how people make moral decisions, and how heuristics, received truths from social authorities, etc., help form their beliefs.  Reminding people of the "Golden Rule" -- "treat others as you'd like to be treated" -- is vastly more effective than arguing the equivalent abstraction, because it's a concrete, "received truth" that people remember.  They were taught it's true.  They are conditioned to believe it's true.  The teaching/heuristic, not the abstract moral concept, drives their decision-making.  It really stretches credulity that you believe religious texts can't influence people's decision-making.

I agree that Islam doesn't guarantee Islamism.  Many Muslims embrace pluralism (although not most, sad to say -- especially on issues like homosexuality).  However, for those who don't, for those who don't want to, and those who were taught (by whomever/whatever) that pluralism is bad, Islamist thought provides them a theological justification for rejecting pluralism.  It may not be inherent to Islam.  But it's common, and it's useful, much like how opposition to gay marriage is aided by (and heavily correlated with) certain Christian theological groups.

I'll try to properly address your points sometime over the next week. By no means am I a religious scholar or an expert on the Middle East so I'm not sure that I have much to offer to you or fellow forumites but I'd like to clarify my statements by giving them much needed context.

I've studied Islam and Wahhabism, but I'm not an expert, either.  I promise that nothing I'm asking, and no point I'm making, will require deep expertise.  So far, most of it has more to do with the psychology of decision-making than religious history, anyway.

[CapoteMonster]

Bill Maher is a comedian so his beliefs on Islam shouldn't be taken that seriously. Sam Harris on the other hand thinks Middle Eastern terrorism is caused by Islam and literally said in The End of Faith that we shouldn't rule out nuclear trikes against the Middle East.

[Sbane]

Excuse me , but are we really going to pretend as if Bill Maher knows what the hell he is talking about?  He really doesn't know sh**t. Sam Harris on the other hand has touched upon an excellent topic. Wahabbism needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately, Sam Harris does not realize this. He is too busy sh**tting on muslims to get it.

This is emblematic of a problem in these discussions.  There's always this distinction between good Islam (mainstream, liberal, moderate) and bad Islam (Wahabbi, Salafi, radical, extremist).  But, those don't really reflect specific categories, besides good and bad Islam.  It's not nearly that simple, at least without more fleshing out as a framework.

I'll respond because...well, I really don't know why I am responding but whatever.

I was born in a country full of discrimination against Muslims. No, not the United States, but India. That being said, in India, Muslims didn't turn radical and blow up sh**t, they worked within the system to effect change. I see the same thing in the United States. So why should we side with Europe and punish Muslims indiscrimantely? They have invited over radical muslims through their idiotic immigration policies but why should US Muslims suffer because of that? Let Europe suffer from their own misguided policies.  Leave US Muslims alone , who are fairly liberal. Those who aren't liberal should be taken care of, but I think the NSA has been working on that for years now.

[Alcon]

Sam Harris frequently conflates Islam with Wahabbism and Islam with Islamism.

Could you cite an argument where he's doing so?  (I'm wary of using isolated quotes, especially from debates, mostly because it's really easy to say something imprecise in an off-handed sentence.)

Harris refers to "the Doctrine of Islam"

I Googled around, and I've found two instances of Harris using this phrase.

1. In the debate with Ben Affleck, when Harris protested the idea of "every criticism of the doctrine of Islam get[ting] conflated with bigotry."  Taking this quote and assuming he thinks there's a single, objective "doctrine of Islam" seems like a reach to me.  His overall point was that criticizing an individual/religion's doctrine doesn't mean you're bigoted.  If I were talking about conservative Christian views on homosexuality, and said "my criticism of Christian doctrine doesn't mean I hate Christians," would you take it to mean I thought particular Christian doctrines were universal?

2. In the other case, he was specifically addressing a claim you're making: that religions aren't guilty of encouraging illiberal behaviors, because people just make them mean whatever they want them to.  The pertinent use is on this page of The End of Faith.  He argues that Islam, unlike Christianity or Judaism, lacks sections that are easily cherry-picked by those who support liberalism.  You may not agree with this argument, but I'm not sure why you're arguing it's inherently offensive or unreasonable or "sh**tting on Muslims"...especially since, in many cases, a majority of Muslims do believe these things.

and has said "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."

He has, in this article.  His argument was totally utilitarian, and for those who think it's intrinsically wrong to make people feel targeted, or thinks the reduction in the likelihood of a terrorist attack isn't worth the hurt feelings, it's an objectionable argument.  Even if you think it's objectionable, and unfair to Muslims, it seems way hyperbolic to characterize this as "sh**tting on Muslims" -- unless you believe his secret, underlying intent was to make Muslims feel bad, or that he's being insincere about not wanting people to feel bad.

I'm also not sure what this argument has to do with Harris's understanding of Islam and Wahhabism, unless you were just needling him.

[Alcon]

Bill Maher is a comedian so his beliefs on Islam shouldn't be taken that seriously. Sam Harris on the other hand thinks Middle Eastern terrorism is caused by Islam

Are you arguing that it's offensive to claim that Middle Eastern terrorism is sometimes (or usually) influenced by religious belief?

and literally said in The End of Faith that we shouldn't rule out nuclear trikes against the Middle East.

From The End of Faith, p. 129:

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?  If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state or readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them.  In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.  Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime -- as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day -- but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

I'm not endorsing this quote, or doing anything from posting it, so you can explain what you think is objectionable before I try to guess.

[Sbane]

Sam Harris never makes the distinction between "liberal" Islam as it is practiced in the west, especially the United States (where Sam Harris comes from) and Wahhabism. I will support anyone who comes out against the destructive ideology that is Wahhabism, but I cannot support a racist who attacks Islam generally. If you attack Sufi Islam, you are just as horrible a human being as someone who attacks Buddhism or liberal Christianity.

[patrick1]

One issue that has been discussed before that I think bears repeating is the consequences on a society that perpetuates a sense of victim-hood and feels that it is under siege.  Whatever the religion or ideology, bloodshed and social problems spring from this.  Most frequently, the majority of the society will not act out on the violent impulses toward revenge or taking (back) what is rightfully theirs.  However, you will have many fellow travellers and support from large segments of the community. Hymns are song and the cult of martyrdom develops to those bold enough to kill or die for what they believe in.

The religious texts or other assorted doctrines (even Science!) become supporting evidence of why it is right to kill. Many will cherry pick what views to accentuate, but that is all too human.

The solution cannot be external in this. The front line in this struggle is within Muslim society itself, yes a rather diverse and flawed concept but the Ummah has common currency.  What it will take, as it has in other conflicts, is for a widespread revulsion at the worst of the violence and an active campaign against it.  Western nations should give a leg up to those fighting the extremists, but there is only so far we can go before it boomerangs back at us.  

[bedstuy]

Sam Harris never makes the distinction between "liberal" Islam as it is practiced in the west, especially the United States (where Sam Harris comes from) and Wahhabism. I will support anyone who comes out against the destructive ideology that is Wahhabism, but I cannot support a racist who attacks Islam generally. If you attack Sufi Islam, you are just as horrible a human being as someone who attacks Buddhism or liberal Christianity.

What are the qualities of "liberal" Islam?  How does mainstream American Sunni Islam differ from Wahhabi Islam in terms of doctrine?  Could you give an explanation of the similarities and difference?

Do you think Sufism is an Islamic sect? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

[Sbane]

Sam Harris never makes the distinction between "liberal" Islam as it is practiced in the west, especially the United States (where Sam Harris comes from) and Wahhabism. I will support anyone who comes out against the destructive ideology that is Wahhabism, but I cannot support a racist who attacks Islam generally. If you attack Sufi Islam, you are just as horrible a human being as someone who attacks Buddhism or liberal Christianity.

What are the qualities of "liberal" Islam?  How does mainstream American Sunni Islam differ from Wahhabi Islam in terms of doctrine?  Could you give an explanation of the similarities and difference?

Do you think Sufism is an Islamic sect? 

Look, I will go with the views of my best friend and the millions of other Indian muslims who are liberal at heart. I really don't give a sh**t what you think.

I don't know whether Sufism is a sect or not. I frankly don't give a sh**t. Religion bores me terribly. What I can tell you though is that Indian muslims, basically 1/6th of the Muslim world, don't think like those Saudis do. Attack the Saudis, not all Muslims. That is my point. Of course the United States won't do that because...well...oil. Much easier to attack people who don't have oil. Saudi Arabia is the problem, not Islam. Yet, no one is willing to confront that elephant in the room.

[Alcon]

Sam Harris never makes the distinction between "liberal" Islam as it is practiced in the west, especially the United States (where Sam Harris comes from) and Wahhabism. I will support anyone who comes out against the destructive ideology that is Wahhabism, but I cannot support a racist who attacks Islam generally. If you attack Sufi Islam, you are just as horrible a human being as someone who attacks Buddhism or liberal Christianity.

I've seen him make this distinction numerous times, although he frequently also points out that Muslims in the West frequently hold illiberal views (especially in Western Europe), which is true.  Be honest with me here before I spend time finding quotes: do you actually think he's never said this, or were you just assuming?

Sam Harris never makes the distinction between "liberal" Islam as it is practiced in the west, especially the United States (where Sam Harris comes from) and Wahhabism. I will support anyone who comes out against the destructive ideology that is Wahhabism, but I cannot support a racist who attacks Islam generally. If you attack Sufi Islam, you are just as horrible a human being as someone who attacks Buddhism or liberal Christianity.

What are the qualities of "liberal" Islam?  How does mainstream American Sunni Islam differ from Wahhabi Islam in terms of doctrine?  Could you give an explanation of the similarities and difference?

Do you think Sufism is an Islamic sect?  

Look, I will go with the views of my best friend and the millions of other Indian muslims who are liberal at heart. I really don't give a sh**t what you think.

I don't know whether Sufism is a sect or not. I frankly don't give a sh**t. Religion bores me terribly. What I can tell you though is that Indian muslims, basically 1/6th of the Muslim world, don't think like those Saudis do. Attack the Saudis, not all Muslims. That is my point. Of course the United States won't do that because...well...oil. Much easier to attack people who don't have oil. Saudi Arabia is the problem, not Islam. Yet, no one is willing to confront that elephant in the room.

Dude, he didn't even make an argument.  He was asking you to define your terms so you can have a conversation about the extent to which problematic theology is (or isn't) present in the Islamic world.  

You seem to be acting like he's claiming that all Muslims are bad people, or that problematic theology is universal among self-identified Muslims.  No one but deluded jerks think that.  You're treating bedstuy like he's being a jerk -- which is insanely ironic, considering your reaction is entirely based on people unfairly grouping in good actors with bad actors.

[Alcon]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

You're not going to get an answer for him, because his argument is one of these two:

1. It doesn't matter if they self-identify as Muslims, because they don't have certain beliefs necessary to be "truly" Muslim.  (Consider that the vast majority of Muslims believe that the Quran categorically prohibits drinking, so many Muslims might assert that disbelief in this teaching indicates disbelief in the Quran.)

2. [No argument, he's just provoking you]

If it's #2, then whatever, I imagine we won't get a reply back.

If it's #1, haven't you made the argument that Mormons, because they do not consider the divinity of Christ in the way you claim is necessary to be Christian, aren't Christians?  How is that any different from argument #1, which you seem to be rejecting as absurd?

There's a whole lot of irony going on this thread.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Mormons are more equivalent to Alawites or Ahmadiyya . Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants.

[Alcon]

Mormons are more equivalent to Alawites or Ahmadiyya . Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants.

That's not how analogies work.  You're bringing in irrelevant criteria.  The reason you reject Mormons as Christians is because they fail to meet certain prerequisites for Christianity.  It doesn't matter if Bektashi are closer to liberal Protestants in the sense that they're socially liberal, or non-insular.  That doesn't somehow acquit them on the relevant criteria: whether mainstream Islam would reject their Islamicness on the basis of failing to meet basic criteria (in this case, literal interpretation of the Qu'ran).

Muslims overwhelmingly believe that literal interpretation of the Q'uran is a prerequisite to being truly Islamic.  Yes or no?  Muslims overwhelmingly believe that the Q'uran prohibits the consumption of alcohol.  Yes or no?  The Bektashi do not believe in this Q'uranic teaching.  Yes or no?

If your answer to these questions is "yes," the analogy to your opinion on Mormonism is completely apt, and you're a ridiculous man.  If the answer to these question is somehow "no," then you're just a ridiculous man.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

There are also a lot of moderate Muslims in the country that has the most Muslims. I wonder what percentage of Americans know which country that is.

[Alcon]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

There are also a lot of moderate Muslims in the country that has the most Muslims. I wonder what percentage of Americans know which country that is.

Haha, let's say the over/under on that is probably like 5%?  I also bet more would say Saudi Arabia.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

There are also a lot of moderate Muslims in the country that has the most Muslims. I wonder what percentage of Americans know which country that is.

Haha, let's say the over/under on that is probably like 5%?  I also bet more would say Saudi Arabia.

If it wasn't for Obama, there's no way it would even be 5%.

[Cory]

Like I said before, how about the Bektashi? Who are known for never having their women veiled and massive alcohol consumption.

There are also a lot of moderate Muslims in the country that has the most Muslims. I wonder what percentage of Americans know which country that is.

Indonesia?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idea that Islam as a religion is intrinsically more oppressive or theocratic than any other religion is completely baseless. Instead of continuing to wonder "what's wrong about Islam" we should start wondering how exactly the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism emerged, and what kind of political and social forces nurtured it.

[politicus]

The idea that Islam as a religion is intrinsically more oppressive or theocratic than any other religion is completely baseless.

"Any other religion" would of course be an exagerration, but so is "completely baseless".  Islamic religious law is a lot more detailed and inflexible than the guidelines you can deduct from, say,  Buddhist texts. This makes it easier and more logical to base society on the religion.

[Alcon]

The idea that Islam as a religion is intrinsically more oppressive or theocratic than any other religion is completely baseless. Instead of continuing to wonder "what's wrong about Islam" we should start wondering how exactly the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism emerged, and what kind of political and social forces nurtured it.

What, to you, would it mean for a religion to be "intrinsically" more oppressive/theocratic/whatever than another religion?

I tend to agree with politicus on this.  No religion is intrinsically anything -- it's all subject to interpretation and cultural factors -- and there are some people who even outright ignore the texts of their religion.  However, from my understanding of Islam, it seems like they place an above-average emphasis on strict textual adherence and strict behavioral adherence.

Obviously, there are people who belong to religions that used to be quite fundamentalist in their mainstream views, and have adapted to pluralism.  If you arguing it isn't intrinsically impossible for Islam to do so, I agree.  If you're arguing there's nothing in mainstream Islamic belief that makes this difficult, I disagree.  And if you're arguing there's nothing in Islamic texts/teaching that makes this more difficult, I probably disagree (although I'm not an expert on the theological issues).

[afleitch]

There is something that I think a lot of you have missed. Islamism is essentially Wahhabism. Its origin is 18th Century attempting to return Islam to a ‘pure’ form, that was never in fact practiced at any point in its history. It was kept in check at first by the clout of the Ottoman Empire and then by post-war geopolitics before it became embedded in Saudi legal clericalism. The oil boom created wealth that has allowed that ideology to spread. It has tentatively been backed by some Saudi investments but is now essentially ‘stateless’. Indeed ISIS/Al Qaeda movements while born of Wahhabism are now forging an even more reactionary path. It’s both modern (in that it’s reactionary) and traditionalist (in that it utilises a very old book) Both the Koran and the Bible suffer because apologists keep inferring that they are 'good' because the vast majority of followers of those books are good when actually they do contain 'requests' of believers that if taken at literal value (and why shouldn't you if you want to be 'pure') command that atrocities are committed.