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

[Alcon]

I disagree with bedstuy and Sam Harris. One of the chief issues I have with "the New Atheism" is its assertion that religious fundamentalism is "premordial" or out of sync with modernity. "Christian conservativsm", radical Zionism and Islamism alike are modern political ideologies that have arisen in response to perceived problems rooted in modernity. The notion that secularism or liberal democracy represents progress or modernity or rationality that stands opposed to the offspring of backwards Pre-Englightenment thought is an absurd account of events in the Middle East. It reeks of chauvinism.

That's not say that I think that Islamism or radical Zionism or "Christian conservatism" have any merit but I think that it's important that the analysis of the rise of Islamism does not stray into the realm of Western magical thinking, which treats the dichotomy of the rational West and the unenlightened East as an assumption. It's bad social science/bad humanistic inquiry to fall back on these tropes.

"Traditional" Islam was quite tolerant of Christian and Jewish communities. The Middle East of the 19th century was pluralistic and rather tolerant in comparison to the Middle East of the 21st century. This is an oversimplification but it illustrates my point quite nicely: the problem with Islam doesn't reside in its founding texts or its rich historical tradition so much as it resides in modernity. I don't know enough about Islamic or Middle Eastern history to say much more than this.

I have never seen Sam Harris or bedstuy argue that Islamism is undesirable because it's "old" or "out of step."  I've seen it argued that it's undesirable because it is in conflict with pluralistic society.  Do you disagree?

If not, it seems like your objection is that Islamism is a modern problem, so simply accusing them of being "un-modern" and demanding they accept Enlightenment values won't solve the problem.  Agreed.  When did Harris or bedstuy say otherwise?  To simply allege that Enlightenment values of pluralism/tolerance are preferable doesn't argue that the world is teleological and that pluralism is the inevitable end of society...or whatever you're claiming Harris argues.

Let's take this out of the abstract.  I'm sure you've seen the poll numbers on public opinions of Islamism in the Muslim world.  I'm sure you know that support is super-majority n a lot of majority-Muslim countries, and on many questions (like death for apostates) it has significant support among Muslims in the West.  Do you think that's a threat to Western pluralism?  Do you think those views are troubling in general?  Do you think those views are based on sincerely-held religious views?

[H. Ross Peron]

He's a blithering idiot who doesn't know much about Islam or anything else.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

You can't be a liberal and a Muslim. There is no liberal tradition in Islam. You can be a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-feminism Episcopalian or Buddhist or Reform Jew. If you hold those views and also consider yourself a Muslim, then you're being unfaithful to one or the other. I think there's plenty of ideological room for a liberal sect of Islam; but we're still waiting for someone to create it.

what

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I disagree with bedstuy and Sam Harris. One of the chief issues I have with "the New Atheism" is its assertion that religious fundamentalism is "premordial" or out of sync with modernity. "Christian conservativsm", radical Zionism and Islamism alike are modern political ideologies that have arisen in response to perceived problems rooted in modernity. The notion that secularism or liberal democracy represents progress or modernity or rationality that stands opposed to the offspring of backwards Pre-Englightenment thought is an absurd account of events in the Middle East. It reeks of chauvinism.

That's not say that I think that Islamism or radical Zionism or "Christian conservatism" have any merit but I think that it's important that the analysis of the rise of Islamism does not stray into the realm of Western magical thinking, which treats the dichotomy of the rational West and the unenlightened East as an assumption. It's bad social science/bad humanistic inquiry to fall back on these tropes.

"Traditional" Islam was quite tolerant of Christian and Jewish communities. The Middle East of the 19th century was pluralistic and rather tolerant in comparison to the Middle East of the 21st century. This is an oversimplification but it illustrates my point quite nicely: the problem with Islam doesn't reside in its founding texts or its rich historical tradition so much as it resides in modernity. I don't know enough about Islamic or Middle Eastern history to say much more than this.

I have never seen Sam Harris or bedstuy argue that Islamism is undesirable because it's "old" or "out of step."  I've seen it argued that it's undesirable because it is in conflict with pluralistic society.  Do you disagree?

If not, it seems like your objection is that Islamism is a modern problem, so simply accusing them of being "un-modern" and demanding they accept Enlightenment values won't solve the problem.  Agreed.  When did Harris or bedstuy say otherwise?  To simply allege that Enlightenment values of pluralism/tolerance are preferable doesn't argue that the world is teleological and that pluralism is the inevitable end of society...or whatever you're claiming Harris argues.

Let's take this out of the abstract.  I'm sure you've seen the poll numbers on public opinions of Islamism in the Muslim world.  I'm sure you know that support is super-majority n a lot of majority-Muslim countries, and on many questions (like death for apostates) it has significant support among Muslims in the West.  Do you think that's a threat to Western pluralism?  Do you think those views are troubling in general?  Do you think those views are based on sincerely-held religious views?

Obviously, I agree that Islamism is in conflict with pluralistic society. I don't agree that Islam is in conflict with pluralistic society. I believe Islamism is an evil, wretched ideology but I don't believe that it's rise is symptomatic of foundational problems that reside Islamic thought or Islamic values so much as it's symptomatic of a perversion that has been exported out of Saudia Arabia and that has been relatively successful because of the lack of secular anti-authoritarian/anti-imperialist political alternatives.

I'm not claiming that Harris argues that the world is teleological or that pluralism is the inevitable end of society. I'm claiming that Harris/bedstuy/many liberal securalists believe that Islamism is a traditional ideology ie that it's rooted in the history of Islamic thought and Islamic values. I disagree with this notion. It's deeply problematic. I think this narrative has resulted in foreign policy blunders that have emboldened Islamists and allowed them to garner more support. If you believe that Islam is trapped in 1350 and that this fact presents a problem for the West, you're implicitly asserting that the faith itself is deeply flawed. This is not only incorrect, it's dangerous.

I don't think that the views of Muslims in the Arab world present a threat to Western societies but I think that these views are deeply troubling and that they threaten religious minorities, LGBT people and women in the Arab world. I think that these views are sincere expressions of religious fervor. I also think that this religious fervor is anomalous and that we must understand its roots before making bold declarations about the nature and history of Islam as a global faith.

edit: *I think that the scope and the intensity of this religious fervor is anomalous. Many of the views held by Muslims are not anomalous but I think it's important to distinguish between personal religious beliefs and the advocacy of the state formulating policy based on these beliefs.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You can't be a liberal and a Muslim. There is no liberal tradition in Islam. You can be a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-feminism Episcopalian or Buddhist or Reform Jew. If you hold those views and also consider yourself a Muslim, then you're being unfaithful to one or the other. I think there's plenty of ideological room for a liberal sect of Islam; but we're still waiting for someone to create it.

I personally know a number of liberal Muslims. But I'll let them know that according to a guy on the internet they have to choose one or the other now.

I'll double-check with my gay, Green-voting Muslim friend shall I?

On topic - there's a nugget of truth in what Maher is saying. The teachings and texts of Islam are very problematic. That is not to say there aren't significant issues in the Bible... but most except the the most extreme have contextualised and rightly dismissed the worst of it. Which is what the vast majority of Muslims in the west do.

The issue I have with Maher on this isn't that he's racist, because I don't believe he is, it's that he fundamentally doesn't understand. He makes the primary mistake that all people who criticise Islam make - primarily they don't understand that it's as diverse and fragmented as Christianity. One of guests, whose name escapes me, was a Palestinian who argued with him that he didn't understand how Islam is structured or how it works. All Maher could say was "yes, I do... here's what the Quran says you do" etc etc.  Would he know about the impact of the rise of the Wahadi in Saudi Arabia after WWI and what that did to Islamic thought and culture in the Middle East? Or the difference between the sects of Islam and what they teach, how the study their religious texts... of course not, because then he can't rant from his high-horse.

Personally, I don't have time for any organised religion, and yes, Islam does pose issues... but to not know or care about the fundamental nuances and diversity of ideas and views, history and not even acknowledging the role played by Islamic thinkers over the centuries in science, architecture, navigation and philosophy.

If you don't acknowledge a difference between Modern Islam in a secular society and Fundamentalist Islamism... then you're an idiot and in Maher's case, deliberately so.

[IceSpear]

Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western values, especially liberal/left-wing values. In one sense, I like how Maher is willing to call out the "who are we to judge their culture?!?!?!?" nonsense some on the left peddle. Any civilized society should be able to condemn barbarism like stoning women for being raped or hanging gay people. On the other hand, he does go too far in extrapolating to Muslims as a whole. While he is correct that there's far more "liberal/nonfundamentalist" Christians than there are Muslims, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot exist. And it's not like this was always the case either, which contradicts his assertion that intolerance/violence or lack thereof is a fundamental difference between the two religions.

[Badger]

So I'm guessing this will be another thread that just hates on Bill Maher without responding to anything he specifically said.

Good guess.

[Flake]

Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western values, especially liberal/left-wing values. In one sense, I like how Maher is willing to call out the "who are we to judge their culture?!?!?!?" nonsense some on the left peddle. Any civilized society should be able to condemn barbarism like stoning women for being raped or hanging gay people. On the other hand, he does go too far in extrapolating to Muslims as a whole. While he is correct that there's far more "liberal/nonfundamentalist" Christians than there are Muslims, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot exist. And it's not like this was always the case either, which contradicts his assertion that intolerance/violence or lack thereof is a fundamental difference between the two religions.

You do realize that it's a bunch of right wing extremists who are in power? It's like if the Westboro Baptist Church ran some Christian country and everyone based their opinions of that religion based on that country?

This is one of the most half-baked arguments I've heard in a while, and it's based on a genuinely terrible philosophy that thinks Islam is a barbaric and uncivilized culture.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

So I'm guessing this will be another thread that just hates on Bill Maher without responding to anything he specifically said.

Good guess.

Bill Maher is a literal clown who shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The problem with declaring anything incompatible with "Western values" is that few can really define what those values are.

[TDAS04]

Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western values, especially liberal/left-wing values. In one sense, I like how Maher is willing to call out the "who are we to judge their culture?!?!?!?" nonsense some on the left peddle. Any civilized society should be able to condemn barbarism like stoning women for being raped or hanging gay people. On the other hand, he does go too far in extrapolating to Muslims as a whole. While he is correct that there's far more "liberal/nonfundamentalist" Christians than there are Muslims, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot exist. And it's not like this was always the case either, which contradicts his assertion that intolerance/violence or lack thereof is a fundamental difference between the two religions.

You do realize that it's a bunch of right wing extremists who are in power? It's like if the Westboro Baptist Church ran some Christian country and everyone based their opinions of that religion based on that country?

This is one of the most half-baked arguments I've heard in a while, and it's based on a genuinely terrible philosophy that thinks Islam is a barbaric and uncivilized culture.

To be fair he said Islamism, not Islam.

[IceSpear]

Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western values, especially liberal/left-wing values. In one sense, I like how Maher is willing to call out the "who are we to judge their culture?!?!?!?" nonsense some on the left peddle. Any civilized society should be able to condemn barbarism like stoning women for being raped or hanging gay people. On the other hand, he does go too far in extrapolating to Muslims as a whole. While he is correct that there's far more "liberal/nonfundamentalist" Christians than there are Muslims, that doesn't mean that the latter cannot exist. And it's not like this was always the case either, which contradicts his assertion that intolerance/violence or lack thereof is a fundamental difference between the two religions.

You do realize that it's a bunch of right wing extremists who are in power? It's like if the Westboro Baptist Church ran some Christian country and everyone based their opinions of that religion based on that country?

This is one of the most half-baked arguments I've heard in a while, and it's based on a genuinely terrible philosophy that thinks Islam is a barbaric and uncivilized culture.

That's exactly my point. You can't condemn Muslims or a religion as a whole for these things, but you can absolutely condemn the ideology that leads to them. Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western culture or civilized society. Islam as a religion is perfectly compatible. Similarly, Christianity is compatible with Western culture and civilized society, but fringe nutjobs like Westboro are not. Maher sees that this type of extremism is much more prevalant in the present day Islamic world than the present day Christian world, which is true. But like I said in my initial post, it's not a fundamental characteristic if you look at history, so you can't say that Islam is different and "rotten at the core" whereas Christianity or other religions are not.

[Sol]

The problem with declaring anything incompatible with "Western values" is that few can really define what those values are.

Exactly. Not to mention that the constructs of "West" vs. "East" are basically lies.

Anyway, if one decides that "Western Values" are democracy and individual rights, one must reconcile that with the fact that more than a few Muslim countries or countries with large Muslim populations maintain these values. See Indonesia, Turkey, India, Senegal, Bosnia, Albania, Tunisia etc. Not mention that there was a little thing called the Arab Spring a couple years ago that included widespread public support for the aforementioned values. Of course it wasn't broadly successful in the short term, but neither was, say, 1848.

[Alcon]

I'm not claiming that Harris argues that the world is teleological or that pluralism is the inevitable end of society. I'm claiming that Harris/bedstuy/many liberal securalists believe that Islamism is a traditional ideology ie that it's rooted in the history of Islamic thought and Islamic values. I disagree with this notion. It's deeply problematic. I think this narrative has resulted in foreign policy blunders that have emboldened Islamists and allowed them to garner more support. If you believe that Islam is trapped in 1350 and that this fact presents a problem for the West, you're implicitly asserting that the faith itself is deeply flawed. This is not only incorrect, it's dangerous.

Islam is a set of texts and teachings.  It's also the way that self-identified followers interpret those texts and teachings, and live their religious lives.  In most cases, the texts/teachings influence beliefs and action.  That is, while most religious people don't strictly adhere to texts, and interpretations vary, we can assume the follower of a Holy Book that says "don't eat fish" is more likely to believe it's wrong to eat fish.

I've seen Harris and contemporaries make three primary claims.

A. Islamism is based on sincerely-held religious beliefs about what is proper conduct for a Muslim.

B. Islamic scriptures/teachings may have certain characteristics that encourage Islamism, or re-enforce Islamism for those predisposed to believe it.

C. Islamism is bad because it is inferior to pluralism and tolerance.

Do you disagree with any of these claims?

Now, the claims you seem to be arguing against are:

1. Islamism is the inevitable result of Islamic belief, regardless of social or historical context.

2. Islamism is the objectively true interpretation of Islamic scripture/teachings.

3. Islamism is bad because it is archaic.

The thing is, I don't see any particularly intelligent thinkers argue any of this.  Can you cite Harris doing so, for instance?  

(Aside #1: Maher has probably blamed Islamic scripture for encouraging these beliefs -- but, I mean, Islamic scripture does contain passages that reasonable Muslims interpret as encouraging Islamism.  Christian scripture contains passages that reasonable Christians interpret as prohibiting homosexuality, and Maher was equally as critical for "Christianity" about encouraging those opinions.  This is why I think Maher is reductionist, but why I think his treatment of Islam doesn't exactly "stick out" from the rest of his opinions.)

(Aside #2: I think it's a little weird you call Islamism a "perversion" of Islam.  I hear this line a lot.  How can you look at a set of scriptures/teachings/traditional beliefs and decide which is a "perversion" and which isn't?  If someone made an obviously nonsensical claim, like believing the literal truth of the Bible but ignoring the Ten Commandments, I could understand calling it "delusional."  But that's not the case here -- these are sane people who are making sincere interpretations of their religion.  The fact that they're hugely problematic interpretations doesn't make them "perversions.")

[Alcon]

You do realize that it's a bunch of right wing extremists who are in power? It's like if the Westboro Baptist Church ran some Christian country and everyone based their opinions of that religion based on that country?

This is one of the most half-baked arguments I've heard in a while, and it's based on a genuinely terrible philosophy that thinks Islam is a barbaric and uncivilized culture.

This is a bad, bad analogy.  Very few Islamists support random attacks on civilians.  However, there are other troubling Islamist policies (like the death penalty for apostasy or stoning for adultery) that have strong majority support in many countries.  Extrapolating these attacks to mainstream Muslim culture is terrible; the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to them.  But Islamism, in milder (but still terrible) forms, does not have strong majority opposition in the Muslim world.

Yes, I'm aware there are plenty of dumb American right-wingers who conflate all sorts of Islamism with each other.  However, for how recklessly imprecise Maher can be, not even he makes this conflation.

It's kind of ironic to see you attacking a strawman of Maher/Harris/etc. in this thread, all while complaining that they're attacking a strawman of Islam.  It would probably help if everyone actually listened to what people were claiming and believed instead of just assuming it based on caricatures.

[Sol]

The problem with declaring anything incompatible with "Western values" is that few can really define what those values are.

Exactly. Not to mention that the constructs of "West" vs. "East" are basically lies.

Anyway, if one decides that "Western Values" are democracy and individual rights, one must reconcile that with the fact that more than a few Muslim countries or countries with large Muslim populations maintain these values. See Indonesia, Turkey, India, Senegal, Bosnia, Albania, Tunisia etc. Not mention that there was a little thing called the Arab Spring a couple years ago that included widespread public support for the aforementioned values. Of course it wasn't broadly successful in the short term, but neither was, say, 1848.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like even Turkey, Indonesia, India at times shift back into a stereotypical "Eastern"  status of religion becoming "too" powerful. They can't really be called Western-style democracies, they have their own idiosyncrasies.

It, predictably, varies a lot from country to country. In Turkey Islam has a very strong political role--my understanding is that is like a slightly more pronounced version of the more right-wing evangelicals back in the Bush years. Indonesia varies a lot from place to place, from Aceh which practices very conservative Sharia law to parts of Java where the local version of Islam is pretty syncretic with Hinduism, with most of the rest of the country being somewhere in between, or not Muslim at all. In India the main religious threat to democracy is not Islamic.

And most countries that are not dominated by European cultural traditions are not going to have democracies like them. See Japan, which is most definitely a democracy and yet has a very different party system than most European countries.

[Alcon]

Islamism as a political ideology is completely incompatible with Western culture or civilized society. Islam as a religion is perfectly compatible. [...] But like I said in my initial post, it's not a fundamental characteristic if you look at history, so you can't say that Islam is different and "rotten at the core" whereas Christianity or other religions are not.

Islam as a religion can be perfectly compatible.  Historically, it has been, at least relatively speaking.  That's totally great, and I'm happy that's true!  However, saying "it is perfectly compatible" ignores the fact that a majority of Muslims currently have views that aren't compatible with pluralist culture.  To reiterate, that doesn't mean:

1. This couldn't change.  (It could!)

2. These people are violent.  (Very few of them would probably ever consider harming anyone.)

3. These people are bad people.  (I'm sure they're mostly perfectly decent people!)

3. The current prevailing Islamist beliefs are intrinsic to Islam.  (Obviously, plenty of relatively moderate/liberal Muslims exist.)

However, none of that contradicts the fact that problematic, sincere theological beliefs are currently widespread in the Muslim world.  These may have overt or unconscious political motivations, but pretending that they have nothing to do with religious belief is a lot like pretending opposition to gay marriage is entirely based on bigotry, and never based on (or aided by) theological belief.  It absolutely is a sincere religious belief for many people.  The same goes for Islamism.

[Sol]

The problem with declaring anything incompatible with "Western values" is that few can really define what those values are.

Exactly. Not to mention that the constructs of "West" vs. "East" are basically lies.

Anyway, if one decides that "Western Values" are democracy and individual rights, one must reconcile that with the fact that more than a few Muslim countries or countries with large Muslim populations maintain these values. See Indonesia, Turkey, India, Senegal, Bosnia, Albania, Tunisia etc. Not mention that there was a little thing called the Arab Spring a couple years ago that included widespread public support for the aforementioned values. Of course it wasn't broadly successful in the short term, but neither was, say, 1848.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like even Turkey, Indonesia, India at times shift back into a stereotypical "Eastern"  status of religion becoming "too" powerful. They can't really be called Western-style democracies, they have their own idiosyncrasies.

It, predictably, varies a lot from country to country. In Turkey Islam has a very strong political role--my understanding is that is like a slightly more pronounced version of the more right-wing evangelicals back in the Bush years. Indonesia varies a lot from place to place, from Aceh which practices very conservative Sharia law to parts of Java where the local version of Islam is pretty syncretic with Hinduism, with most of the rest of the country being somewhere in between, or not Muslim at all. In India the main religious threat to democracy is not Islamic.

And most countries that are not dominated by European cultural traditions are not going to have democracies like them. See Japan, which is most definitely a democracy and yet has a very different party system than most European countries.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking tbh. In India there are some Hindu nationalists who create controversy, which is why I listed them.

This isn't necessarily related, but I don't see much hope for true democracy outside of Western Europe/Americas/Japan. Even in those countries there's enough corruption at times to cast some doubt on it. I guess I'm too pessimistic.

It seems like Democracy is on the advance in Eastern Europe, for sure. And in Sub-Saharan Africa, it seems, slowly but surely, democracy is growing, particularly in Southern Africa. And even out side of there, you have Ghana and Senegal which are democratic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can't be a liberal and a Muslim. There is no liberal tradition in Islam. You can be a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-feminism Episcopalian or Buddhist or Reform Jew. If you hold those views and also consider yourself a Muslim, then you're being unfaithful to one or the other. I think there's plenty of ideological room for a liberal sect of Islam; but we're still waiting for someone to create it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bektashi_Order

[Sbane]

You can't be a liberal and a Muslim. There is no liberal tradition in Islam. You can be a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-feminism Episcopalian or Buddhist or Reform Jew. If you hold those views and also consider yourself a Muslim, then you're being unfaithful to one or the other. I think there's plenty of ideological room for a liberal sect of Islam; but we're still waiting for someone to create it.

My best friend is a liberal muslim. On her behalf, a hearty f*** you to you. You can choose to be an unthinking troglodyte, or you can actually try to understand the issues before you weigh in on them. The choice is yours.

[Cory]

So I'm guessing this will be another thread that just hates on Bill Maher without responding to anything he specifically said.

Good guess.

[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.

[Alcon]

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."

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm not claiming that Harris argues that the world is teleological or that pluralism is the inevitable end of society. I'm claiming that Harris/bedstuy/many liberal securalists believe that Islamism is a traditional ideology ie that it's rooted in the history of Islamic thought and Islamic values. I disagree with this notion. It's deeply problematic. I think this narrative has resulted in foreign policy blunders that have emboldened Islamists and allowed them to garner more support. If you believe that Islam is trapped in 1350 and that this fact presents a problem for the West, you're implicitly asserting that the faith itself is deeply flawed. This is not only incorrect, it's dangerous.

Islam is a set of texts and teachings.  It's also the way that self-identified followers interpret those texts and teachings, and live their religious lives.  In most cases, the texts/teachings influence beliefs and action.  That is, while most religious people don't strictly adhere to texts, and interpretations vary, we can assume the follower of a Holy Book that says "don't eat fish" is more likely to believe it's wrong to eat fish.

I've seen Harris and contemporaries make three primary claims.

A. Islamism is based on sincerely-held religious beliefs about what is proper conduct for a Muslim.

B. Islamic scriptures/teachings may have certain characteristics that encourage Islamism, or re-enforce Islamism for those predisposed to believe it.

C. Islamism is bad because it is inferior to pluralism and tolerance.

Do you disagree with any of these claims?

Now, the claims you seem to be arguing against are:

1. Islamism is the inevitable result of Islamic belief, regardless of social or historical context.

2. Islamism is the objectively true interpretation of Islamic scripture/teachings.

3. Islamism is bad because it is archaic.

The thing is, I don't see any particularly intelligent thinkers argue any of this.  Can you cite Harris doing so, for instance?  

(Aside #1: Maher has probably blamed Islamic scripture for encouraging these beliefs -- but, I mean, Islamic scripture does contain passages that reasonable Muslims interpret as encouraging Islamism.  Christian scripture contains passages that reasonable Christians interpret as prohibiting homosexuality, and Maher was equally as critical for "Christianity" about encouraging those opinions.  This is why I think Maher is reductionist, but why I think his treatment of Islam doesn't exactly "stick out" from the rest of his opinions.)

(Aside #2: I think it's a little weird you call Islamism a "perversion" of Islam.  I hear this line a lot.  How can you look at a set of scriptures/teachings/traditional beliefs and decide which is a "perversion" and which isn't?  If someone made an obviously nonsensical claim, like believing the literal truth of the Bible but ignoring the Ten Commandments, I could understand calling it "delusional."  But that's not the case here -- these are sane people who are making sincere interpretations of their religion.  The fact that they're hugely problematic interpretations doesn't make them "perversions.")

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. I more or less agree with Reza Aslan:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[bedstuy]

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.