Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Affleck vs Maher on Islam


zoony

Recommended Posts

The number is 86% not 90%, and the 86% number of Egyptians is the percent that think the law of the land should be Sharia law AND think people that leave Islam should be killed.  Of Egyptians that think that Sharia law should be the law of the land, 86% think that leaving the Islam should be punishable by death.

 

In the poll, the 86% is the highest number in the poll so in that sense Egypt is an outlier.

 

When you take the two numbers and turn it into a total number of people, you get 64% (most Egyptians believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land and most of those people believe that leaving Islam should be a death sentence so the combination gives you a number greater than 50%).  

 

Now, that number might be a little low because you can imagine there are some that might not think that Sharia law should be the law of the land, but that think leaving Islam should be punishable by death.

 

The 64% put Egypt tied for 2nd of the surveyed countries.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

 

But I think Islam has pretty big problems, and there is going to be an issue of right now people that are attracted to violence are going to be attracted to Islam.

 

It isn't like the idea of punishing people guilty of apostate is new or wasn't pretty obviously wide spread.  It is the law of the land in many heavily Muslim countries, including those that are generally considered to be our allies.  Here's a piece from wiki about apostate in Saudi Arabia and what is in their school text books.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Saudi_Arabia

 

(The poll doesn't include Saudi Arabia.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam never had a Reformation and never got the Enlightenment.   As a result, in most Muslim places religion has never been subsumed to secular civil society the way it has in the West.   That is a huge problem and I'm not sure what to do about it.

 

I'm pretty sure that going out of our way to piss off 1.6 billion people who have a lot of reason to mistrust us already by mocking their faith isn't the best plan.  


  It is the law of the land in many heavily Muslim countries, including those that are generally considered to be our allies. 

 

 

The ones who are generally considered our allies are in large part the worst offenders of all.  They aren't our allies because we share the same values.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones who are generally considered our allies are in large part the worst offenders of all.  They aren't our allies because we share the same values.  

 

 

Excellent point.  The entire relationship between the Middle East and the West is so Entangled, it is hard to see a way to Globalization of the Middle Eastern Culture, which must surely come if we ever hope to see a lasting peace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam never had a Reformation and never got the Enlightenment.   As a result, in most Muslim places religion has never been subsumed to secular civil society the way it has in the West.   That is a huge problem and I'm not sure what to do about it.

 

I'm pretty sure that going out of our way to piss off 1.6 billion people who have a lot of reason to mistrust us already by mocking their faith isn't the best plan. 

 

You have to wonder though how much a Reformation and Enlightenment are possible in Islam.

 

We can talk about how much the Koran and the history of Islam support violence, but there clearly is no turn the other cheek and love your enemy in the Koran or history of Islam.

 

And just to point out that ideas like love your enemy is also a central concept in Buddhism where we don't see wide spread support for killing people that leave for another religion.

 

Can we discuss the relationship between (even state mandated) violence and the religion without mocking it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do "liberals" need to do a better job speaking out for freedom and tolerance in the Muslim World? Yes.

 

But that is a difficult thing to do, because:

 

1. Every single goddamn time we poke our nose in that part of the world in any manner, we make things worse.

 

2. This is not a situation where you are dealing with legitimate governments (like China) and apply pressure in different ways. You are basically yelling at people who WANT to live in an 11th Century theocracy.

 

3. If we are going to have this conversation, we need to discuss everything the west has done to create this problem. There wasn't widespread Islamic fundamentalism in the Ottoman Empire. This started under the British, got heated with the creation of Israel, and exploded as a direct result of the coup in Iran. For some reason, we never do this. We act like The Taliban has existed for hundreds of years. The historical record shows that most of the Islamic world was a reasonably safe place for Christians and Jews until the last century or so - which can certainly not be said for Muslims and Jews in the Christian World. At some point in the last century, they went wildly off the rails.

 

By the way, I'm in Texas. I have bigger issues dealing with the Baptists in Austin than I do Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maher is 100% correct when he calls out liberals for their hypocrisy on this issue. If you are going to stand for secular principles and tolerance, then call out all religions the same. When I worked with the secular society at my school during undergrad, this was the biggest god damn issue for me. They were so overtly anti-Christian but there PC bull**** against Islam was infuriating.

 

When the religious law specifically states that stoning, lashes and death are appropriate responses to apostasy, blasphemy, premarital sex, homosexuality etc. then stand up against it and call it for what it is.

 

Islam is an extremely conservative religion and cultures who adhere to it tend to be quite conservative themselves. My girlfriend is from a Muslim family and is openly non-religious. Let's just say it hasn't won her any favors within her community (which is a really small ethnic group to begin with). Her dating a non-Muslim and openly atheist person like me has probably made things worse.

 

It's VERY difficult to leave Islam (or any religion for that matter) without committing cultural suicide. Sadly, in most Islamic countries, this can end up being a matter of life and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do "liberals" need to do a better job speaking out for freedom and tolerance in the Muslim World? Yes.

 

But that is a difficult thing to do, because:

 

1. Every single goddamn time we poke our nose in that part of the world in any manner, we make things worse.

 

2. This is not a situation where you are dealing with legitimate governments (like China) and apply pressure in different ways. You are basically yelling at people who WANT to live in an 11th Century theocracy.

 

3. If we are going to have this conversation, we need to discuss everything the west has done to create this problem. There wasn't widespread Islamic fundamentalism in the Ottoman Empire. This started under the British, got heated with the creation of Israel, and exploded as a direct result of the coup in Iran. For some reason, we never do this. We act like The Taliban has existed for hundreds of years. The historical record shows that most of the Islamic world was a reasonably safe place for Christians and Jews until the last century or so - which can certainly not be said for Muslims and Jews in the Christian World. At some point in the last century, they went wildly off the rails.

 

By the way, I'm in Texas. I have bigger issues dealing with the Baptists in Austin than I do Muslims.

Deja vu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone tries to pass a sharia law in my state, I will speak out against it.  It never happens.

 

When I speak out against Christian Fundamentalist overreach in this country, I am not ignoring the even worse crappiness of Islamic Fundamentalism in some other country.  It isn't relevant to the discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maher is 100% correct when he calls out liberals for their hypocrisy on this issue. If you are going to stand for secular principles and tolerance, then call out all religions the same. When I worked with the secular society at my school during undergrad, this was the biggest god damn issue for me. They were so overtly anti-Christian but there PC bull**** against Islam was infuriating.

 

I think the best point in this exchange was Nicolas Kristoff's:

 

NICHOLAS KRISTOFF: This is such a caricature of Indonesia, of Malaysia, of so much of the world. And this does have a tinge a little bit of how white racists talk about African-American and define blacks by --

 

Here's the thing: I don't think we know. He's citing polls of Egyptians that sound horrifying, but I don't know how accurate polling is in Egypt or who did the polling or what it even ultimately means. I mean, I know the history of the Middle East and I understand the politics, but I don't think we have a great handle on the sociology of it. And I don't know if what the sociology is today is necessarily what it means in a generation.

 

I assume if you took a poll of the Japanese in 1940, you might find some alarming sentiments about, say, The Chinese and whether they have the right to live or die. (Frankly, if you could give every Japaense person a lie detector test today, you might still find some troubling thoughts). But within a generation - whether they still have those beliefs or not - they are not acting upon them.

 

That is really the transformation that Christianity has made in the alst century. Protestants and Catholics still have huge disagreements with each other. And there are huge numbers on each side that think the other is going to Hell. But, there is very little acting upon those disagreements in the modern world.

 

The Muslim World has gone backwards in this regard in the last hundred years or so - do in no small part to becoming a huge chess piece to Western governments during that time. That needs to change clearly.

 

I'm not sure a rally in Cambridge, Massachusetts can do that.

Deja vu

 

Brilliance must be shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta hand it to Maher.  He's sticking to his guns on this one.  It's an interesting point he's making regarding how a true liberal (or at least as he sees one) SHOULD be reacting to Islamic Violence.

Mahers quote "if 90% of brazilians felt that death was the appropriate response to leaving Catholicism you would think it was a bigger deal"

Spot. On.

I understand why this topic makes traditional liberals so uncomfortable. Nobody likes being called a hypocrite. It sucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution has been simple

 

Get off oil, dry up the funds for Wahbism and fundamental Shiaism (i.e defund Saudi Arabia and Iran) and 98% of the problems go away

 

The problem with "modern Islam" has always been the Brits choosing Saudi Arabia during the 1st world war and giving legitimacy to Wahibism.

 

Even further there are 3 key events. 1) The 1953 coup in Iran 2) 1979 overthrow of the Shah 3) The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund a jihad against the Soviets. I should add a 4th) the war in Iraq

 

All of the above a result of WW1 

 

Then again, what do I know? I only speak the language of some of the most conservative of Muslims

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution has been simple

 

Get off oil, dry up the funds for Wahbism and fundamental Shiaism (i.e defund Saudi Arabia and Iran) and 98% of the problems go away

 

The problem with "modern Islam" has always been the Brits choosing Saudi Arabia during the 1st world war and giving legitimacy to Wahibism.

 

Even further there are 3 key events. 1) The 1953 coup in Iran 2) 1979 overthrow of the Shah 3) The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund a jihad against the Soviets. I should add a 4th) the war in Iraq

 

All of the above a result of WW1 

 

Then again, what do I know? I only speak the language of some of the most conservative of Muslims

 

 

I said all this, which just proves that you are the Russell Wilson of Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution has been simple

Get off oil, dry up the funds for Wahbism and fundamental Shiaism (i.e defund Saudi Arabia and Iran) and 98% of the problems go away

The problem with "modern Islam" has always been the Brits choosing Saudi Arabia during the 1st world war and giving legitimacy to Wahibism.

Even further there are 3 key events. 1) The 1953 coup in Iran 2) 1979 overthrow of the Shah 3) The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our decision to fund a jihad against the Soviets. I should add a 4th) the war in Iraq

All of the above a result of WW1

Then again, what do I know? I only speak the language of some of the most conservative of Muslims

I was a catholic when the sex scandal rocked the church. I was (and still am) absolutely disgusted with the sinful behavior that occurred and it ultimately was one of the factors in me leaving the church.

So when you hear statistics from the Muslim world about the death penalty for leaving the religion and the rampant abuse of woman and gay rights, does it piss you off? Does it make you want to speak out about it and or leave your faith? I mean 78% of British Muslims wanted the Danish cartoonist prosecuted? Really?!?!

This is my question for moderate (liberal, by Muslim standards), logical folks such as yourself

And further, not sure why we can't have this conversation in this day and time without someone throwing around the term "bigot", etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best point in this exchange was Nicolas Kristoff's:

 

 

Here's the thing, none of those countries are shining examples of liberal Islam.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

 

    • Indonesia has increasingly become more conservative. (Notoriously anti-women) Sharia courts that were “optional” have risen to equal status with regular courts in family matters. The conservative Aceh province even legislates criminal matters via Sharia courts, which has been said to violate fundamental human rights.
    • Malaysia has a dual-system of law which mandates sharia law for Muslims. These allow men to have multiple wives (polygyny) and discriminate against women in inheritance (as mandated by Islamic scripture). It also prohibits wives from disobeying the “lawful orders” of their husbands.
    • Bangladesh, which according to feminist Tahmima Anam made real advancements towards equality in its inception, also “created a barrier to women’s advancement.” This barrier? An article in the otherwise progressive constitution which states that “women shall have equal rights with men in all spheres of the state and of the public life” but in the realm of private affairs (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody), “it acknowledges Islam as the state religion and effectively enshrines the application of Islamic law in family affairs. The Constitution thus does nothing to enforce equality in private life.”

There are some fairly acceptable liberal principles that these countries do not adhere to.

 

The one shining example of Islamic secularism, Turkey, was founded by a guy who would hung to death in todays Middle East. Here is a quote form Ataturk:

 

I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.

 

 

Turkey seems to be becoming more religious as well. There are mass protests against cartoonists who depict the religion. What happens to Ataturk if he says that today?

 

 

 

When someone tries to pass a sharia law in my state, I will speak out against it.  It never happens.

 

When I speak out against Christian Fundamentalist overreach in this country, I am not ignoring the even worse crappiness of Islamic Fundamentalism.  It isn't relevant to the discussion.  

 

This is a fairly typical liberal deflection. We are living in a hyper connected, globalized world. Effects of Islamic fundamentalism are felt here in the US via our foreign policy. On a humanitarian side, liberals have been extremely successful at steering civil rights movements within the US. There is no reason that the American liberal voice can't have a similar effect in the rest of the world. The point isn't that you criticize Islam and Christianity the same. But there is a fairly decent chunk of the liberal base that allows Islam to get away with a whole bunch of shenanigans, while actively speaking out against its criticism: see Ben Affleck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you hear statistics from the Muslim world about the death penalty for leaving the religion and the rampant abuse of woman and gay rights, does it piss you off? Does it make you want to speak out about it and or leave your faith?

This is my question for moderate (liberal, by Muslim standards), logical folks such as yourself

And further, not sure why we can't have this conversation in this day and time without someone throwing around the term "bigot", etc

 

Its probably easier to answer this way

 

1) I really don't interact with people who still believe death for apostasy (which arises from the time of the Prophet when there were people in Mecca essentially trying to figure out the 'winning" army to be a part of. They would be Muslim one day, lose a battle, then go join the other side. The Prophet essentially said kill those who leave the Muslim army, which in turn led to kill those who leave Islam and has been codified into cultural Islam)

 

But yes I do get horrified when I hear statistics like that because of how much I have traveled there and interacted there and trying to figure out who the hell these people are. Pakistan is probably more whacked out then Egypt, but the people in the cities I end up interacting with have Benz's and are blasting Cold Play

 

2) Gay rights. Surprisingly or not gay people for the most part aren't harrased in Karachi or Islamabad. I have had cross dressers ask me for cash. It is more of an oddity then anything. The laws on the books are nowhere near European standards for gay rights, but there isn't a weekly execution of gay people in central Islamabad either

 

3) What I tend to get more pissed about are the very violent Taliban/ISIS groups that kill kill kill more Muslims, and don't want to export Islam but want to export Talibanism or ISISism, and follow their own scripture

 

4) It shouldn't be a matter of being a bigot or not, but the way it ends up being phrased is "Islam has a problem thus you gotta watch out for those Muslims everywhere" It adds to a bad environment already. Criticize Pakistan/Egypt/SA? I do that plenty. You end up criticizing Islam in the way Maher does and you end up criticizing every Muslim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fairly typical liberal deflection. We are living in a hyper connected, globalized world. Effects of Islamic fundamentalism are felt here in the US via our foreign policy. On a humanitarian side, liberals have been extremely successful at steering civil rights movements within the US. There is no reason that the American liberal voice can't have a similar effect in the rest of the world. The point isn't that you criticize Islam and Christianity the same. But there is a fairly decent chunk of the liberal base that allows Islam to get away with a whole bunch of shenanigans.

I wouldn't quite go that far but it's a solid point and you are correct that ultimately it is deflection, nothing more

Laser focus needed here people.

Maher isn't calling our Muslims. He's calling out LIBERALS.

That's why this is interesting to me.

Thank you. It's what affleck couldn't grasp with his tiny brain

It was amusing to me to hear maher repeatedly say "you are not understanding what we are saying" while affleck got more and more upset

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...