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

[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

[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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Alright, here's how I break it down. There are no doubt Muslims that believe anyone without a literal interpretation of the Koran isn't Muslim. There's also people who say anyone who doesn't literally interpret the Bible isn't Christian. Obviously liberal Protestants are not Christian to these people. Being a liberal Protestant, I think it's pretty obvious what my opinion is. So if Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants (which they fit pretty well in they basically hold to all the basic tenants and five pillars, they just don't follow most un-modern Islamic laws like liberal Protestants reject the anti-gay stuff), then yeah they're clearly Muslim by my view.

Ahmadis are a sect that was founded by some guy in the 19th century who claimed to have received further revelations from God after Mohammed. Does that remind you of anything? The vast majority of Muslims (including probably most Bektashi I'd wager) consider them non-Muslim on the grounds that Mohammed being the final messenger is a tenant of Islam. In Pakistan there's heavy discrimination against them, it's basically illegal for themselves to call themselves Muslim or even to call their places of worship mosques. But if you're going to exclude Mormons as Christians, it's hard to not exclude them as Muslim too, especially considering the similarities. Obviously this doesn't justify the legal discrimination against them, and I don't consider them any more right or wrong than Muslims, but there's a solid case to exclude them and not Bektashi.

I'll also note that while there are plenty that agree with me that liberal Protestants are Christian but not Mormon, it's pretty difficult to argue the latter, unless you believe in some sort of insane No True Scotsman that being anti-gay is a central tenant of Christianity (which a lot of Reddit-esque neckbeard atheist types actually do, but I know you're smarter than they are.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

sbane - A full 86% of Malaysian Muslims support sharia law, and of those, two-thirds support the death penalty for apostasy.  It's true that Malaysia has little Islamist terrorism, but these numbers are still a problem.  You seem to be under the impression that people expressing concern about these numbers "must" be expressing concern about all adherents of the religion, or claiming that all interpretations of the religion lead the same place.  That's not the case, even with Maher, who can be pretty broad with his dickishness.

P.S. You earlier claimed that Sam Harris has never differentiated liberal Muslims from Islamists.  Again, do you actually believe that he never does this?  I recall him doing it multiple times during the Affleck debate.

(Side note: It's weird to me to see liberals purporting to be concerned about social justice treat this so much differently than the #NotAllMen/#YesAllWomen business.  I'm not criticizing anyone in this thread, but I know a ton of people who flipped on the whole "appropriateness of systemic criticism of non-majority ills" issue, seemingly overnight.)

How many people have actually been tried and killed for apostasy in Malaysia? And why exactly is this a problem and not views on gays in Uganda? And if both are problems, then why is Islam in general being held up for scrutiny and not Christianity? I do agree the Ugandans don't go around killing innocent people because of their despicable views, but that is the case with Malaysians as well. Religious people all around the world, including America, hold unsavory views. The difference is that some Muslims use their religion to commit violence, but I don't get why Malaysians or people in other "moderate" Islamic countries are guilty as well.

Sam Harris may do a better job of differentiating between liberals and the rest of the Islamic world, but even he unnecessarily tries to paint Islam as being exceptional when it comes to extremism. Why not focus just on the extremists? Why the need to prove Islam itself is the problem?

The death penalty for apostasy might not occur in Malaysia, but there are some pretty discriminatory laws. For example Malaysia prohibits selling alcohol to Muslims, and in Malaysia religion is an actual legal status assigned to you you can't change. So if you were raised Muslim, you can't ever buy alcohol, but anyone not can. Now I'm sure that it's not too difficult for people with a Muslim status to get alcohol in Malaysia anyway considering how easy it is for underage people in the US to get alcohol, but there are other issues where the law is a big problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy

As far as Uganda goes, it's not like the situation in Muslim countries is all that much better, see mostly Muslim The Gambia just passing a similar law and what their President has said: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-7-worst-things-gambias-president-yahya-jammeh-has-ever-said-about-gay-people-9977170.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Alright, here's how I break it down. There are no doubt Muslims that believe anyone without a literal interpretation of the Koran isn't Muslim. There's also people who say anyone who doesn't literally interpret the Bible isn't Christian. Obviously liberal Protestants are not Christian to these people. Being a liberal Protestant, I think it's pretty obvious what my opinion is. So if Bektashi are equivalent to liberal Protestants (which they fit pretty well in they basically hold to all the basic tenants and five pillars, they just don't follow most un-modern Islamic laws like liberal Protestants reject the anti-gay stuff), then yeah they're clearly Muslim by my view.

Ahmadis are a sect that was founded by some guy in the 19th century who claimed to have received further revelations from God after Mohammed. Does that remind you of anything? The vast majority of Muslims (including probably most Bektashi I'd wager) consider them non-Muslim on the grounds that Mohammed being the final messenger is a tenant of Islam. In Pakistan there's heavy discrimination against them, it's basically illegal for themselves to call themselves Muslim or even to call their places of worship mosques. But if you're going to exclude Mormons as Christians, it's hard to not exclude them as Muslim too, especially considering the similarities. Obviously this doesn't justify the legal discrimination against them, and I don't consider them any more right or wrong than Muslims, but there's a solid case to exclude them and not Bektashi.

But Islam broadly tolerates non-literal interpretations of scripture a lot less than Christianity does, from my opinion.  Relatively few Muslims share that sentiment.  You're falsely assuming that Christianity and Islam have the same consensus determinants about what makes you "truly" Christian/Muslim.

I'll also note that while there are plenty that agree with me that liberal Protestants are Christian but not Mormon, it's pretty difficult to argue the latter, unless you believe in some sort of insane No True Scotsman that being anti-gay is a central tenant of Christianity (which a lot of Reddit-esque neckbeard atheist types actually do, but I know you're smarter than they are.)

Again, if consensus determines the minimum requirements to "truly" be of a given religion, then my understanding is that most Muslims would exclude those who don't follow the Quran as the literal word.  This consensus is not nearly as strong in Christianity.  The emphasis on literal interpretation in Islam is probably why even moderate Muslim countries can have alarming poll results.  Islam does not have the same cultural separation between good conduct in society and good conduct as a religious individual.  I don't know to what extent this is true (I know many countries allow women to decline full burqas even though most citizens consider it immoral), but I do think it probably makes it harder to convince Muslims to adopt secular civic societies.

Alright, valid point there. But still I think the point remains the same, the criteria used to exclude Mormons as Christian is not the same type of logic that'd be used to exclude Bektashi. It would exclude a couple other sects that claim to be Muslim, but I'll agree with the general consensus of most Muslims on that.

BTW I think you don't know what a burqa is. They're quite rare even in Muslim countries. See this article for a distinction: http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-in-burqa-condemns-woman-in-chador,169/

How many people have actually been tried and killed for apostasy in Malaysia?

Apostasy isn't illegal in Malaysia.  I did not say apostasy is illegal in Malaysia.  I said a majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy.

Actually, apostasy IS illegal in Malaysia. It doesn't carry a death sentence, or even criminal penalties, but the state refuses to recognize it, and that results in some pretty awful and discriminatory situations, such as the case of Lina Joy I linked to above.