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

[ingemann]

While Wahhabism is a very unpleasant aspect of modern Islam, it's not like pre-Wahhabistic Islam was all that enlighten, yes early modern Islam and medieval treated Christians better than early modern and medieval Christianity treated Muslims (because Muslim saw Christians as Christians saw Jews, and for Christians Muslims was just pagans), but it treated Jews excactly like Christians did and their treatment of pagans was everybit as brutal as the worst of Christinity's treatment of pagans. Early modern Islam was not especially enligthen compare to Christianity, both shared a general intolerance toward other religions and both also had and still have strong social justice elements (help the poor and weak).

At the same time slavery was much more integrated into the Islamic faith than it was in Christianity, which have always had anti-slavery aspects (slavery was de facto abolished several times in Christiandom, only to reestablish itself later again). It's no accident that Islam never abolished slavery on it own, but that it was external pressure, which made them abolish it. In fact Mauritania is the last stronghold of real chattel slavery (rather than the bonded labour we see in the Gulf today) and it was not a stronghold of Wahhabism in the past. 

So mostly I think it's too easy to blame Wahhabism, yes it's ugly version of Islam, and the Saudi prestige (as guardian of Mecca and Medina) and money has allowed its uglier aspects to spread and may be the primarily source of radical Islamic universalism. But it's not the only problem, Taliban and Boko haram are ethno-religious version of Islam, who is mostly homegrown, it do not make them nicer. The Iranian theocracy have from the start been anti-Wahhabistic (and Iran and the Shias are in fact the Wahhabists maqin enemies, not the west), but it have also had very ugly elements.   

 

[ingemann]

So are you saying Islamic extremism has dragged Islam into that conversation? I might agree. I find it still pretty baffling that you seem unable to understand what I'm talking about.

Well maybe you should start again with making your point clear. Because clearly everybody else arre just too stupid to get your point.

[ingemann]

Sbane, we've basically been at war with Islamic extremist groups for 13 years and change.  We've spent untold billions and lost thousands of lives.  And, globally, we have Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes.  So, Islam is on the table for discussion.  I didn't put it on the table for political debate, Islam has injected itself into the conversation.  And, so, I'm more interested in understanding the issue than I am with avoiding potential hurt feelings.  Obviously, this subject begs sensitivity and nuance, but I think I've been sensitive and nuanced.

The conflation of the two bolded bits above is neither sensitive nor nuanced, and I would go so far as to say is a big part of the problem Sbane is talking about.

Try to explain with you own words what you mean, because clearly everybody is able to find your earlier post, and bedstuy have desperate tried to interpreted your comments in all reasonable and sensible ways it could be interpreted, with you behaving like you was his angry girlfriend ("it wasn't that I meant, you should know what I mean").

[ingemann]

Sbane, we've basically been at war with Islamic extremist groups for 13 years and change.  We've spent untold billions and lost thousands of lives.  And, globally, we have Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes.  So, Islam is on the table for discussion.  I didn't put it on the table for political debate, Islam has injected itself into the conversation.  And, so, I'm more interested in understanding the issue than I am with avoiding potential hurt feelings.  Obviously, this subject begs sensitivity and nuance, but I think I've been sensitive and nuanced.

The conflation of the two bolded bits above is neither sensitive nor nuanced, and I would go so far as to say is a big part of the problem Sbane is talking about.

Try to explain with you own words what you mean, because clearly everybody is able to find your earlier post, and bedstuy have desperate tried to interpreted your comments in all reasonable and sensible ways it could be interpreted, with you behaving like you was his angry girlfriend ("it wasn't that I meant, you should know what I mean").

WTF are you even talking about? I quoted my own words. My post was perfectly clear. The swipe about an angry girlfriend is incoherent.

Yes dear

[ingemann]

Tell me what you think is unclear about my post and I'll try to clear it up, then.

I think it's very clear, but I also think that Bedstuy have interpreted in the way it clearly only can be interpreted, which is why I suggest that you tell us precisely what you thought was wrong with Bedstuy's post.

[ingemann]

Sbane, we've basically been at war with Islamic extremist groups for 13 years and change.  We've spent untold billions and lost thousands of lives.  And, globally, we have Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes.  So, Islam is on the table for discussion.  I didn't put it on the table for political debate, Islam has injected itself into the conversation.  And, so, I'm more interested in understanding the issue than I am with avoiding potential hurt feelings.  Obviously, this subject begs sensitivity and nuance, but I think I've been sensitive and nuanced.

The conflation of the two bolded bits above is neither sensitive nor nuanced, and I would go so far as to say is a big part of the problem Sbane is talking about.

OK. You see above, where I bolded two parts of what he said? At first he's talking about Islamic extremist groups committing horrendous crimes. Cool. No problem.

But he then slides into "Islam is on the table for discussion." (I've italicized this bit, though I didn't in my original reply) Still not objectionable, but it's drifting from a focus on Islamic extremist groups to Islam in general.

Then he says, "Islam has injected itself into the conversation," as though Islam as an institution (if such a thing can be said to coherently exist) has done something to implicate itself in the conversation about Islamic extremists.

This is not to say that Islam is off-limits for discussion. Far from it. But the slide from "Islamic extremists" to "Islam" is not backed up in the post, and is emblematic of a lot of what people find objectionable about what Harris and Maher were saying in the first place.

As for why? It's because, generally, the two of them are claiming to know what the truest expression of Islam is, and that it's the kind practiced by the aforementioned extremists.

Thank you through I will say I somewhat disagree.

While it's unfair to blame Muslims as a whole, they're not unconnected with this, no more than the pro-liffe movement are to wholy to blame or unconneccted with the murder of abortion doctors.

While only a small minority of Muslims want these things to happen and a even smaller minority of Muslims are willing to commit these acts.  This is born from a greater Muslim narrative of them be victims of a west, which represent everything decadent, sinful etc. The people who push these views, may just wish that Muslims became rightious and rejected western values, rather than killed other people. But when you keep telling people that they're victims, some come to the conclusion that they need to hit back against the oppressor.

So no you can't diconnect Muslims as a whole from these acts, and attempting to do so, will just push a continued denial of how these things come from their communities, which will help the far right growing, which will feed the narrative of Muslims as victims.

Look at how fast people here began to push the perspective of Muslims as the real victims of this. They wasn't and just indicating it, pissed many non-Muslims off, including many who don't vote for the far right.

[ingemann]

Jesus Christ. Go throw your little hissy fit somewhere else. It's beyond tiresome.

It's absolutely relevant to this discussion to ponder whether it's something inherent about the religion or, like you said, the particular path that the history of that religion has taken in this world. That's what I'm getting at. Do you think that Islam uniquely offers up more justification for violence and regressive policies than other religions do? I happen to think that the places in the world where Islam has taken deepest root and their particular circumstances matter a good bit more than the actual contents of the religion's scriptures.

The problem is that there's no such things as true Islam or Christianity (except for the Evangelical Lutheran Church:p), both are a highly syntetic mix, which have developed in their inteaction with different cultures and social structures the last 2 millenniums.

A Islam which had spend the 1000 year in Europe, would only be superficial recognisable for us. It would likely look more like the Protestant state churches (king at the top, organised clergy below) than anything like the Middle East.

While Christianity, which was never shaped by Greco-Roman culture and institutions, would likely look more like Rabbinic Judaism, with no organised clergy, but instead individual churches lead by some kind of scholar.

This make the thought experiment interesting, but fundamental irrelevant for this discussion.

[ingemann]

All of the Abrahamic religions share a story where God commits the genocide of the entire world, so if we are talking strictly doctrine none of them is entirely humanistic.

Those are really bad examples, as those are acts of God, not human acts, a better comparison is the Israelite invasion of Canaan.