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

[Alcon]

Bill Maher tends to be a dick who does broad-brush commentary on everything -- although he's pretty consistent in his treatment of mainstream opinions within the Christian right.  It seems a little odd to call him a "racist," since he seems to be about as hostile toward other forms of theism.  It's just that mainstream, modern Christianity doesn't have many opinions as troubling as mainstream Islam's views toward apostasy, etc.  In that, Maher is completely right.  Few Muslims are violent, and the vast majority are good people, but Muslims (even moderate, peaceful ones) are disproportionately likely to believe some very troubling theology.  Even if you don't think that theology is true (whatever that means), do you really doubt it's sincerely-held and based on sincere religious beliefs?

So guys, does anyone disagree with bedstuy's post above, or Sam Harris's arguments (which also got widely lambasted)?  I think this is a much more interesting question, and I'm not seeing much depth in the forum's consideration of these issues.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Alcon]

Expanding this beyond political Islam, since it's really hard to extricate sincere religious belief and political concerns there, how longstanding is the practice/support of giving apostates the death penalty, stoning adulterers, etc.?  I was under the impression these things are not recent inventions.

[Alcon]

Expanding this beyond political Islam, since it's really hard to extricate sincere religious belief and political concerns there, how longstanding is the practice/support of giving apostates the death penalty, stoning adulterers, etc.?  I was under the impression these things are not recent inventions.

Hardly a specifically Muslim thing.

Antonio, have you not been reading my posts in this thread?  Do you not understand my argument?  Unless that's the case, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm claiming religious executions are unique to Islam (or execution is unique to religion)?

If that was still a widespread, widely-supported practice in Christianity, I would be just as concerned about it.  It's the same thing.  And, like the current problems in Islam, hersey executions were fueled by sincere religious beliefs -- not the inevitable result of them, but aided by them.

[Alcon]

Expanding this beyond political Islam, since it's really hard to extricate sincere religious belief and political concerns there, how longstanding is the practice/support of giving apostates the death penalty, stoning adulterers, etc.?  I was under the impression these things are not recent inventions.

Hardly a specifically Muslim thing.

Antonio, have you not been reading my posts in this thread?  Do you not understand my argument?  Unless that's the case, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm claiming religious executions are unique to Islam (or execution is unique to religion)?

If that was still a widespread, widely-supported practice in Christianity, I would be just as concerned about it.  It's the same thing.  And, like the current problems in Islam, hersey executions were fueled by sincere religious beliefs -- not the inevitable result of them, but aided by them.

Certainly. But, if we accept that all (or at least most) religions can, potentially, spread this sort of behavior, then we have to consider the possibility that maybe the variable at stake here isn't Islam in itself, but rather its political utilization.

I don't understand why you think there can't be multiple significant variables here.  Your argument is like pointing out that there are Christians who support gay marriage, and concluding that gay marriage opposition has nothing to do with Christian religious beliefs, or that the Inquisition or Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity because they're not constant and universal in the religion.  Or like arguing that, because not all countries have the death penalty for apostasy, we should assume punishing apostates has nothing to do with religion.

Besides, inverting your argument, what does it say that apostasy prohibitions have been widespread throughout very different political periods?  Aren't you basically forced, by your own argument, to accept that religion is the static variable there?

[Alcon]

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.)

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

And why exactly is this a problem and not views on gays in Uganda?

I did not say that I don't have a problem with the treatment of gays in Uganda.

And if both are problems, then why is Islam in general being held up for scrutiny and not Christianity?

I never said that Christianity shoudn't be held up to scrutiny.  It should.  There are a lot of areas of the world where Christianity prompts similarly troubling cultural attitudes.  The problem is a lot less common in Christianity than it is in Islam.  Most of that is sociocultural, but variations in doctrine and theology may also contribute.

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.

Agreed.

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.

When did I say anything like this?

You post on a politics forum.  You are completely aware that, on any given issue, there are a lot of people who think in black-and-white terms and lack nuance.  That is the case here.  You are currently talking to someone who does not think in those terms, and you're asking about arguments I haven't made.  You seem to have had an emotional reaction to this thread, and you're now rationalizing it by attacking arguments not being made by those you're arguing with.

I also need to point out, again, that this isn't a dichotomy against peaceful people and terrorists.  Even among peaceful people, fundamentalist theocratic opinions are way too common.  As I said before, even in a moderate Muslim country like Malaysia, a majority of Muslims hold some very troubling views.  If this were the case in a Christian country, even one that didn't generate terrorism, I'd consider that very troubling too.  It's less troubling than terrorism, obviously, but it's still troubling (and much more common).

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?

You just claimed that he never made this differentiation, and now you've shifting your claim? 

Harris argues that there are characteristics of Islamic societies, some of which originate from sociocultural ideas and some from sincerely-held religious beliefs, that are more widespread and problematic than other religions.  I think he believes that those sincerely-held beliefs are huge impediments to removing the more problematic beliefs/laws/etc.

But, more to the point, if you weren't even familiar with his writing enough to know he differentiates moderate vs. Islamist Muslims, why are you asking me what he thinks, and not read his arguments to get an answer to your question directly?

[Alcon]

edit: Most of what I say here is redundant to Marokai's points above.

Alcon, people hold troubling views around the world, many times due to their religion, but what I don't get is why are we talking specifically about muslims? Gender rights, gay rights and the right to choose your own religion are very important, but these are issues which deserve attention not only in the Muslim world, but also other parts of the world including in Christian, Hindu and yes, Buddhist countries.

You're restating the same question a little here, dude.  I've said numerous times that other religions have some major problems too, relating to troubling theocratic beliefs.  Claiming this is unique to Islam is objectively wrong.  However, these views are more widespread within Islam.  That's why this gets more attention (fairly), plus the tendency to focus on recent events episodically (arbitrary).  That's the answer to your question.  Do you disagree with it?

So let's turn our attention back towards Islamic terrorism, which is the reason why Bill Maher gets so excited when he talks about Islam. Violent, fundamentalist Islam is a huge problem in this world and of course people need to realize these people are a threat and they need to be eliminated. And one of the reasons it is becoming a bigger threat is the export of a very conservative interpretation of Islam being pumped out of the Arabian peninsula funded by oil money. That is also a problem that needs to be acknowledged. But note that this has nothing at all to do with a "moderate" Muslims who may hold nasty views about apostates, gays and women's rights but in reality just go about their day to day lives like normal human beings.

It doesn't have "nothing" to do with them.  They aren't responsible for it, and most of these people would never commit terrorist acts.  But they are different manifestations (of varying severity) of a similar thread of thought: the idea that theocratic law enables them to take people's lives for religious reasons.  These "moderates" are still Islamists -- they aren't terrorists, but they're Islamists.  Islamism does not inevitably lead to extremism.  Despite strong support in their ranks, Muslim Malaysians don't go around killing apostates.  But these beliefs are effectively a prerequisite to extremism, and it's certainly easier to become extreme if you believe you're morally entitled to kill someone for a religious transgression.

It is those people we need on our side if we are to win the war on violent, Islamic fundamentalism without a 3rd world war. It is a tough ask for sure but it is being made easier by the horrible atrocities the terrorists are carrying out against other Muslims. I understand this won't solve the other issues in the Muslim world, but as I pointed out, these issues exist in other places as well and should be treated separately from the issue of Islamic terrorism.

I'm not sure what your argument is here: even if these people have dangerous theocratic views (like killing apostates), we shouldn't concern ourselves with those, because we don't want to antagonize them?  I'm open to that argument, but that's entirely separate from an evaluation of whether their views are problematic.

[Alcon]

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/

Sorry, I do.  I have a bad habit of thinking "type chador not burqa" and then, naturally, typing "burqa" instead.  I actually saw the first woman I've ever seen wearing a burqa here yesterday.  It was weird -- she was in a group of women wearing pretty non-conservative chadors.  One of them even had her bangs showing.  I guess it was a Sex in the City thing and she was the Charlotte.*

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.

I meant to say it's not a criminal offense, but in any case, you definitely know more about this than I do .  Apparently (from Wikipedia) one state allows conversions, but it's an incredibly obscure process.  At least the government seems to be more moderate than the Muslim populace on the issue.  Anyway, thanks for educating me.

* - for the record, I had to Google that.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure where you're going with this, CrabCake.  It's true that a decent number of the foot soldiers are probably not intellectuals or theologians.  I'm not sure why you're arguing that matters?  It's not like Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have an intellectual background (Sayyid Qutb, etc.).  It's also not like lacking deep theological understanding precludes someone from being influenced by sincere theological beliefs.  There are certainly some sociopaths, probably many, within the ranks of terrorists.  But what has led you to believe that these people are insincere about their religious beliefs?  I'm sure it's comforting to believe that these are people who don't care about doing the right thing, and are just looking for an excuse for violence, but that ignores the fact that there's ample evidence that normal people can be incredibly violent when they think they're doing good.  I'm not sure why you seem convinced that this isn't happening here.

[Alcon]

I just think people are too overeager to look for theological reasons why we are seeing a bunch of Islamic extremists rather than looking at things from a humanistic perspective.

I don't think they are "sociopaths", but simply using religion as a crux to work off ... aggro, for lack of a better word. (an extremely and almost certainly broad generalisation I'll admit).

So, is your point that young men can be easily drawn to violence?  Yes.  But most potentially violent people are not amoral sociopaths, and require some sort of moral or social justification to want to commit atrocities.  It's ridiculous to argue that religion is merely a front for those who would assuredly otherwise be violent, and are insincerely looking for a rationalization. I know why it's appealing in a sort of black-and-white way, but it's just not realistic.

[Alcon]

As I mentioned in the response to Marokai above, if the link between Islamists and Islamic terrorism is that important, why don't we see more terrorism in places like Malaysia or Bangladesh? You yourself gave evidence that even in these supposed moderate countries, the people still profess to believe in things written in the Koran which are highly illiberal. I think wahabbism is a different beast than your traditional, conservative Islam. Wahabbism advocates for the killing of other muslims who visit shrines of sufi saints. So you can only imagine what its followers think of people in other religions....

Yes, sbane, I agree.  However, I've made it clear what I'm arguing, so I don't understand why you keep asking me again.  Islamist religious beliefs are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Islamist terrorism.  I don't know why you keep pointing out that Wahhabism is a different thing than conservative Islam, like I don't know that, or like I've been arguing otherwise.

As for the discussion of Islam, again as I asked Marokai, I have to ask what is to be gained from singling out Islam for criticism. It just does not accomplish anything, except pissing off muslims who are basically on our side and who do hold liberal views.

Those necessary-but-not-sufficient beliefs for religious extremism are more widespread in Islam than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism.  That does not mean they are only in Islam.  It does not mean they are shared by most Muslims.  It does not mean other religiously-inspired extremism doesn't warrant criticism, as with he Uganda case.  It does not mean anything but the very literal words I've carefully wrote in this thread.

But there is an equivocation you're nearly making here that you've nearly made several times.  The Muslims who are "basically on our side and who do hold liberal values" are not the same as the non-Wahabbists.  Conservative, traditionalist Muslims largely do not hold liberal values, unless you're defining liberal values by "opposing blowing people up for liberalism."  I'm all for alliances with people who oppose terrorism.  However, that doesn't mean I don't think that the values they hold aren't problematic, and aren't potentially fostering extremism within their societies' ranks.  Not always, not inevitably, and not consistently between countries, but often.

I can sort of see your perspective, as you think Islamism leads to extremism and terrorist attacks (not always as you point out but it increases the likelihood of it). I don't think the link is that simple. You think this is merely about religion, whereas I think the cultures of the regions involved play a huge role as well. As someone who is primarily concerned with terrorism in the Islamic world as opposed to its other ills, I consider someone who rejects violence but may still think the Koran is the literal word of god, to be my ally in that fight against terrorism.

OK, dude, I have never said that I think this is "all about religion."  I have said the opposite several times.  I can keep clarifying my argument, but it's going to be pointless if you keep not reading it.  I sincerely believe that you're trying to be fair-minded here, which is why I'm so confused as to why you keep reading arguments that aren't being made.