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

[bedstuy]

I don't think he's racist and I generally agree with Bill Maher on Islam.  I think he's lacking in nuance in those soundbites and I don't think he's any type of Islam expert, but I mostly agree with his points.

When people say Islam they often mean a few different things and each meaning is problematic.  

Islam in theory
Islam in practice in the third world
Islam in the texts, particularly the Quran and the Hadiths

In theory:  Anyone could say, Islam could be compatible with gay rights or women's rights if they adapt their practice, theology and focus.  And, there are Muslim people like Keith Ellison who see no conflict between liberalism and Islam.  So, that's one way to look at it.

Islam in practice in the third world:  On one hand, you can't argue that governments like Sudan apply Islam in harmony with liberalism.  On the other hand, people can say Sudan is a brutal, corrupt regime that isn't a good example of what Islam is.  

In the texts:  Any long body of ancient religious text is going to be polysemic and prone to multiple interpretations.  You can find nice things in those books.  You can find justification for evil, horrible things like genocide, sexism, slavery, war crimes of various types in the Islamic holy books.  On one hand, you can interpret around all those bad things, like liberal Christians do with many of the potentially problematic parts of their books.

Bill Maher in 1350 might say that anti-Semitism was intrinsic to Christianity and maybe it is, to some extent.  But, it seems like in the western world, Christianity has gotten over whatever caused them to harass and murder Jews with a religious motivation for hundreds and hundreds of years.  And, Bill Maher might say in 1350 that Christianity inevitably led to subjugation of women, because of the sexist text in the Bible.  But, today, you'll find many liberal, feminist Christians.  

So, I think you can help but say, it's more complicated than, "Islam forces people to do these horrible things," by virtue of its text or its very essential nature.  Islam could be as benign as Judaism or Christianity, which themselves have a long way to go in jiving with modern liberal principles.  It just isn't for a variety of reasons, in 2015.  Islam is currently, as it is practiced and believed in, more fundamentalist, more regressive and less moderated by modernity compared to Judaism and Christianity.  That's just what I can't help but conclude from looking at the effect of Islam around the world.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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

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

Do you think Sufism is an Islamic sect? 

[bedstuy]

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

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

Do you think Sufism is an Islamic sect? 

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.

If you don't know anything about Islam and don't care to know anything, so why are you so intent on making specific points about it?

[bedstuy]

Wahhabism is the proper name for a specific Saudi fundamentalist movement.  However, you can't just label all Islamic movements that are fundamentalist or distasteful, Wahhabist.  Wahhabi is a Saudi movement which has influenced many radicals like Osama Bin Laden.  But, Al Qaeda specifically broke with the Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia like Bin Baz who Bin Laden saw as Saud regime pawns.  And, you won't find many people outside Saudi Arabia identifying as Wahhabist, instead they'll usually say Salafi.  I don't think it's a helpful term outside of the Saudi context.

On the other hand, the most brutal crimes committed by Muslims could appropriately be called "ethno-religious."  Sudan for example in their brutal imposition of Islamic sharia, genocide and enslavement of their southern provinces, that was a sort of Islam mixed with racial/cultural hatred.  But, you can't just chalk the Sudanese Civil War to nationalism or race, when it was started because the north wanted to impose Islamic law on the South and subsequently used that Islamic law to justify enslaving thousands of people. 

Here's my issue though:  Where do we draw the line between Salafi and normal Sunni Islam?  Because, it's not that simple it seems to me.  Because, "let's restore the original form of XYZ" is not a totally unique, novel take on anything.  I think most of these jihadists are actually pretty uneducated on Islam honestly.  They have a sort of extremist spin on the type of Sunni Islam you find anywhere in the world, not some esoteric, unique theology. 

And, for the Islamic religious authorities in the liberal west, it's also not that simple.  If you're up there emphasizing how Islam is the perfect religion and sharia is God's law, etc, etc. it's then difficult to say,  "but, don't take it tooooo far."  And, sure, most people will ignore the radicalism because they just want to live their lives.  And, even most extremists will never join something like Al Qaeda because they're decent human beings who recoil at the idea of mass murder.  But, I can't help but see that all religions have people who take things a bit too far.  I don't think it's a coincidence that taking things a bit too far in the Islamic faith is materially different and more dangerous than any other mainstream faith.

I think we're silly if we don't pay attention to what's actually happening in the Western World.  When people become Christian fundamentalists, they're annoying, but they don't kill people.  When people become Jewish fundamentalists, they're annoying, but they don't kill people.  Muslim fundamentalists have been trying to blow up my hometown for my entire life.  Not just Saudis Muslims, but Egyptians, Pakistanis, Americans, etc. etc.  So, I think it's all too easy to just dismiss the connection between the type of Sunni Islam you find in the average mosque in America or France or the UK and Salafi extremism.

[bedstuy]

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.

If you actually think I said something racist or incorrect, we can talk about that.  But, I find it childish for you to say nobody can discuss something because you're not interested in it.

[bedstuy]

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.

I don't follow.  What do you disagree with? 

[bedstuy]

You talk about Islamic extremist groups, and then you say Islam (implication: Islam as a whole) has proactively injected itself into a discussion about the people committing horrendous crimes. This is incorrect.

I must be missing something.  Would you also say that you can't talk about terrorism in the context of Al Qaeda because not all terrorist groups are Al Qaeda?

[bedstuy]

I didn't say you can't talk about Islam. You said "Islam has injected itself into the conversation," which implies a certain level of proactiveness on the part of the religion at large. If you had said "Islam has been thrust into the conversation," I would likely have had no problem.

It doesn't actually imply that at all.  Maybe it wasn't the most elegant phrase, but you know what I mean.  Islam is related to many of the global issues of concern in recent years like ISIS, the war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, and all the terrorist attacks in the West. 

[bedstuy]

If that's what you mean, then fine. It's not what you said, and it's almost certainly not what a moderate Muslim would have heard.

If someone hears Islam and thinks that Islam means "all Muslim people as individuals," how is that my fault?  I haven't said anything remotely offensive.  You're just telling me that I must have implied something about all Muslims because I said something about Islam.  Nope, I can only be held accountable for what I said, not what you think I must have meant.  You're being incredibly pedantic and looking to be offended by things I didn't even say.  (I'm sorry if you took that as I hate all pedants and want to send them to Siberian gulags.)  (I'm sorry if you think that implies that I think all of Siberia is a horrible place) 

[bedstuy]

JFC, dude, I'm not being pedantic. This is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I accept that you didn't mean what it looked to me like your words implied, but your steadfast refusal to even entertain the idea that it's a reasonable implication is baffling.

Also, nowhere did I say "all Muslim people as individuals". Check yourself.

I guess I still don't understand your point.  I didn't say anything racist or hateful or offensive.  You choose to think that saying the word Islam in the same paragraph as extremist is offensive or whatever.  I think we've exhausted that nitpick.

[bedstuy]

"Islam has injected itself into the conversation."

The conversation about what?

"Islamic extremist insurgencies around the world that are killing people and committing horrendous crimes."

How exactly has Islam, in general, injected itself into that specific conversation?

Islamic extremism involves Islam.  But, that's about enough of that conversation.

[bedstuy]

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.

I will respond to both you and Marokai in more detail when I have time but I wanted to address this because it touched upon my basic point. We will need these people who reject violent extremism, even if they hold these nasty views about gays or women, on our side in the very important fight against terrorism. That does not in any way justify those views. I am just being practical here. Fighting 1.5 Billion people is something I am just not interested in, especially since 99.99% of them don't pose any threat to me. Islamic society needs to reform itself and it will only be successful if it comes internally. I hope you don't think if liberals in the west start criticizing Islam that Islam will suddenly reform itself. The opposite is more likely to happen, if it has any effect at all.

Who said we need to fight Muslims?  Nobody here.

And, you need to distinguish public policy and diplomacy from a discussion of facts.  You are conflating those two things.  As if, my opinion about Islam could either start a war or mend hurt feelings.  Nobody cares what I think, my only interest is in the truth, not in the public relations side of it.

As for that side, of course, the State Department and Barack Obama shouldn't say negative things about Islam.  Even if those negative things are true, it doesn't help and could seriously hurt.  When it comes to be diplomacy, it pays to be diplomatic.  There's something called "Realpolitik."  Our country can't afford to treat the world like a moral crusade in our foreign policy. 

So, your point is like in 1944 saying we can't have an academic discussion about Stalinism because we need to USSR's help and we can't go to war with them.  "You can't say bad things about communism because there are hundreds of millions of communists!"

That's the difference here. Some people are interested in the connections between religion and certain phenomena in the real world.  Other people are specifically not interested if the truth doesn't conform to what they wish was true.  If the truth might be offensive or upsetting, nahhh, not interested.

I actually don't think I'm an expert on this subject. There are really complicated questions here that are layered and complex.  And, maybe, you look at Islam and say, "hey, Islam has no connection to Islamic terrorism."  But, it seems to me that shutting down all thinking about certain difficult questions, as some people here demand, for the sake of people's feelings is ridiculous.  If you want to understand any issue and ultimately attempt to address it, I think you need to start with the truth.  Not what you hope is true or a sanitized version of the truth that could never hurt people's feelings.

[bedstuy]

Maybe what I said was a tad hyperbolic.  It's an analogy, it's not the same but, it's similar in the context of what I was illustrating.

But, it's telling that you don't want to argue about reality, you only want to police and edit my language. 

[bedstuy]

I'm not trying to police or edit you. I wasn't even really very harsh. I was just pointing out something you said that wasn't correct.

I can't go into this stupid game again where you derail everything by repeatedly saying that said something offensive to your delicate sensibilities.

I posited a question earlier that nobody has answered. Do you think that, were religions to be magically flipped and today the West were to be dominated by Islam, and Christianity were dominant in the Middle East, that the West would become more violent and regressive and the Middle East would become more tolerant?

It's a waste of time to answer that.  We're not comparing Islam in theory to Christianity in theory, or Christianity in 150 vs. Islam in 650.  We're talking about Islam today, which is inescapably a product of its particular history.  So, that thought experiment is both a waste of time and inapplicable to this discussion.

[bedstuy]

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.

That's a loaded question though and a useless one as well.  Because, religions change based on their history and context, even if the scriptures don't change.  So, any ideology or religion would be different if there was a different historical context where it evolved.  You're exchanging a factual, empirical question for a ridiculous hypothetical question so it's easier to just throw up your arms and say, "nobody knows and so, all religions are the same!"

And, your premise is that unless Islam is so inherently itself as a religious unit that its historical context is irrelevant, then, Islam is essentially irrelevant to politics and current events in 2015.  That's just all or nothing thinking.  Either it's the only variable or it's irrelevant.

To me, these questions are too complex to tease out with these silly thought experiments.  Rather, you just have to examine the ideologies as they are in 2015 and see what the consequences are in 2015.  Because, we actually can't change the history of anything because that's baked in for any religion and for the state of affairs in 2015.

[bedstuy]

I'm not convinced at all that it's irreducibly Islamic, and that absent that particular ideology the extremism wouldn't exist.

I don't think that matters at all.  If you take away the history between India and Pakistan, maybe they wouldn't have nationalist tensions.  Does that mean their national rivalry doesn't actual exist or something?

I don't oppose criticism in this vein because I'm a shrinking violet who's afraid someone's feelings will get hurt. Rather, I don't think it's terribly effective, and doesn't address the real roots of the problem.

Sure.  I don't think criticism will help by itself.  I don't go up to religious people and say, "yo, your religion is dumb, dummy!"  That would be unhelpful.  But, I think an accurate picture of the relationship between religious beliefs and actions is actually important and helpful.  And, I think Sunni Islam fuels terrorism and Islamism by virtue of its current doctrines (which are a product of history and context, etc. etc., not some magic kernel of evil or the swarthy Oriental essential nature of the A-Rabs).  I wish that wasn't true, but I think it is based on what I know about Islam and its recent history.  And, maybe I'm wrong.  But, it matters if I'm wrong, and I would like to know that I'm wrong as a matter of facts, as opposed to wrong as a matter of wishful thinking or public relations towards the Islamic world.

[bedstuy]

Religion is stupid, but thinking that violent morons actually care about their religions beyond using them as a great excuse to yell at people and blow stuff up is equally stupid.

This is why people posting Muhammad on facebook and waxing about their caricatures with titles like "ZOMG single-handedly defeating ISIS lol!!11!" are really barking up the wrong tree. You think any extremist (beyond the simple-minded grunts who are riled up in sermons) actually give two craps about poxy drawings? No, it's just further ammo, further potential to distort the West in propaganda and further abilities to undermine the free nations of the west.

What are you basing that on? 

As for what people post on facebook, it's all nonsense.  You can find a dumb facebook post on either side of any political debate so pointing out dumb ideas on one side is irrelevant.

[bedstuy]

That's pretty thin though because you're just sort of asserting that nobody is motivated by religion.  I think that's manifestly untrue as demonstrated throughout history that religion is a strong motivating factor in people's lives.  It can be tough for atheists to grasp, I certainly don't totally understand it, but I don't automatically second-guess the idea that people care about religion just because I don't.

Would you also say that the Nazis weren't motivated by fascism or anti-Semitism, did they just have similar evil whims because they were bored or crazy or whatever?  Or, would you say that if Nazis weren't anti-Semites for the reasons Nazis used, they would have slaughtered the Jews for some other reason, maybe because they hated potato pancakes?  Or, if it wasn't Jews, it might have been left-handed people? 

I just find that whole idea very bold and almost comical, that nobody is motivated by ideologies or religions. 

[bedstuy]

...no and I appreciate words not being placed in my mouth.

People do horrible things due to their own internal rationalisations and psyches, which make them appear to be horrible people.

If you grow up in a culture where everybody else thinks apostates should be murdered, guess what? You're going to think that is a normal action. People are people everywhere, and we all are products of our environment.

But, quite frankly, I wasn't even talking about them. I was talking about the subversives: the ISIS fighters, the shooters and the bombers. I think you just saw a few random phrases and decided to have a go at me for something that I don't think I even implied.

Every country ever will have people influenced by their environment and their emotions.  So, that's an explanation that explains nothing, right?

[bedstuy]

Talking about an entire religion is a lot to take on.  I could talk about Islamic history, the prohibitions on innovation in religion, the quasi-nationalistic concepts that encourage isolation and us vs. them and the statistics from polling to religious motivated terrorist attacks.  But, I wonder if I could just take on a discrete issue.  Imagine we polled and got honest answers from three groups of people, the priests of the three largest religious denominations among the three big monotheistic religions.

Reform Judaism, Catholicism and Sunni Islam.

Obviously, among those religious leaders there will be variation.  There will be reform Jewish rabbis that are essentially agnostic if you pushed them on it.  There will be Mel Gibson type Catholic priests and Liberation theology espousing left-wing Catholic priests.  There will be Salafi, closet ISIS supporting imams and also, more moderate Sunni Muslim imams from South Asia.  But, imagine the range of beliefs among those groups, rabbi/preist/imam.  

Here are some Sunni Islamic beliefs:

Women and men should not intermingle in society.
Women should be covered except for their face in public.
Women shouldn't leave their home for an extended period of time without being accompanied by a male relative.
Music is prohibited, specific musical instruments.
Gay sex should be punished by execution of both parties.
Thieves should have a hand cut off as punishment.
Muslims belong to a quasi-national community that takes precedence.
Democracy and Western government is antithetical to Islam.
It would be desirable to create an Islamic caliphate.
Terrorism in the name of religion is sometimes justified.

Now, I would call those beliefs problematic to varying degrees.  What percentage of Sunni imams preach these ideas in their mosque?  What percentage of Reform Rabbis or Catholic priests teach similarly problematic things?  That's the difference for me.  I think some of the above ideas are common in Sunni Islam, as taught in the USA and some are so pernicious that even if 5% of imams teach those ideas, that's concerning.  

I don't think there are equivalently dangerous ideas among Reform Rabbis or Catholic priests.

[bedstuy]

The Quran is not the only authority in Islam.  But, I looked it up and here is a quote from the Hadith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, certain kinds of singing is part of Islam like singing the call to prayer and singing the Quran.  And, I think there are certain musical instruments that are OK.  But, I think the majority view is that a Muslims should not listen to say, a piano or a violin. 

Whether that means banning violins by the government?  I don't know. 

[bedstuy]

The Quran is not the only authority in Islam.  But, I looked it up and here is a quote from the Hadith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, certain kinds of singing is part of Islam like singing the call to prayer and singing the Quran.  And, I think there are certain musical instruments that are OK.  But, I think the majority view is that a Muslims should not listen to say, a piano or a violin. 

Whether that means banning violins by the government?  I don't know. 

And what evidence do you have for this declaration?

Maybe that is the case in Saudi Arabia, where wahhabism is taught as the only interpretation of Islam. It certainly would be a shock to the vast majority of muslims in India, whether they are conservative or liberal. I don't know if you know this, but Muslims play a major part in Bollywood with many famous singers being Muslim as well as many prominent actors, including the most famous actor, Shahrukh Khan. And his movies, which contain many, many things wahhabis would find offensive, are widely watched not just in India, but in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran etc.

I can't point you to one source, but that's my impression and as I understand it, every major Islamic school of jurisprudence agrees that most musical instruments are at least somewhat wrong or disfavored.

Here's a general source, or you can google it yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_music#Permissibility_of_music

And, I just want to point out that I wasn't talking about Muslims, I was talking about Sunni Imams.  There's a difference.