Bill Maher and Sam Harris arguing with Ben Affleck about Islam

Yes, they could and should have done a much better job of exposing him. Although he already exposed himself by displaying so much anger. But we are used to seeing that anger from Muslims around the world when they think that someone "offended Islam".

Doing a "great job" of showing that even so-called "scholars" cannot contain their anger and passive aggressive intolerance when they feel that someone questions and "offends" Islam. We see this behavior here on the forum all the time as well.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...hy/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Reza Aslan is Wrong About Islam and This is Why

This is a guest post written by Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider (below). They are co-founders of Ex-Muslims of North America, a community-building organization for ex-Muslims across the non-theist spectrum, and can be reached at @MoTheAtheist and @SarahTheHaider.

This past week, a clip of Reza Aslan responding to comedian Bill Maher’s comments about Islamic violence and misogyny went viral.

Maher stated (among other things) that “if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.” Maher implied a connection between FGM and violence against women with the Islamic faith, to which the charming Aslan seems to be providing a nuanced counterbalance, calling Maher “unsophisticated” and his arguments “facile.” His comments were lauded by many media outlets, including Salon and the Huffington Post.
Although we have become accustomed to the agenda-driven narrative from Aslan, we were blown away by how his undeniably appealing but patently misleading arguments were cheered on by many, with the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple going so far as to advise show producers not to put a show-host against Aslan “unless your people are schooled in religion, politics and geopolitics of the Muslim world.”
Only those who themselves aren’t very “schooled” in Islam and Muslim affairs would imply that Aslan does anything but misinform by cherry-picking and distorting facts.
Nearly everything Aslan stated during his segment was either wrong, or technically-correct-but-actually-wrong. We will explain by going through each of his statements in the hopes that Aslan was just misinformed (although it’s hard for us to imagine that a “scholar” such as Aslan wouldn’t be aware of all this).
Aslan contends that while some Muslim countries have problems with violence and women’s rights, in others like “Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men” and it is therefore incorrect to imply that such issues are a problem with Islam and “facile” to imply that women are “somehow mistreated in the Muslim world.”
Let us be clear here: No one in their right mind would claim that Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are a “free and open society for women.” Happily, a few of them have enshrined laws that have done much to bring about some progress in equality between the sexes. But this progress is hindered or even eroded by the creeping strength of the notoriously anti-woman Sharia courts.
For example:
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.”
And finally we come to Turkey, a country oft-cited by apologists due to its relative stability, liberalism, and gender equality. What they consistently choose to ignore is that historically, Turkey was militantly secular. We mean this literally: The country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, created a secular state and pushed Islam out of the public sphere (outlawing polygamy, child marriages, and giving divorce rights to women) through (at times, military) force. He even banned the headscarf in various public sectors and is believed by some to have been an atheist.
Only apologists would ignore the circumstances that led to Turkey’s incredible progress and success relative to the Muslim world, and hold it up as an example of “Islamic” advancement of women’s rights. In fact, child marriages (which continue to be widespread in rural Turkey), are often hidden due to the practice of “religious” marriages (Nikah) being performed without informing secular authorities. Turkey was recently forced to pass a law banning religious marriages with penalties imposed on imams for violations.
Aslan’s claim that Muslim countries “have elected seven women as their heads of state” is an example of “technically true, actually false” — a tactic we have often noted among religious apologists.
It is true that there have been seven female heads of state in Muslim-majority countries, but a closer inspection would reveal this has little to do with female empowerment and often has much more to do with the political power of certain families in under-developed parts of the world.
It is well-known that Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was democratically elected in Pakistan. What is not as well-known is that her advancement had much to do with her family’s power in her party (Pakistan People’s Party) and little to do with female empowerment. Her father was once Prime Minister of Pakistan, and she was elected to the position fresh from her exile in the West with little political experience of her own. After her assassination, her nineteen year old son assumed leadership of her political party — as was expected by many familiar with the power their family continued to hold.
Similarly, Sheikh Hasina (the current Prime Minister of Bangladesh) is the daughter of the founding father of the country, Sheikh Mujibur-Rehman. Khaleda Zia, the predecessor of Sheikh Hasina, assumed power over her party after the assassination of her husband — the second Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
In addition, Megawati Sukarnopotri, former President of Indonesia, was the daughter of Sukarno, the founding father of Indonesia.
To anyone familiar with women’s rights around the world, neither Pakistan, Bangladesh, nor Indonesia can be considered states with a stellar track record. It is likely that in these cases, the power of political dynasties was the key factor in their success.
Furthermore, female heads of state were elected democratically in Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and Kosovo. But, as before, a closer inspection reveals a complicated reality. All three states are secular, where religion was forcibly uprooted from the government — due to Atatürk (in the case of Turkey) or Communism (in the cases of Kyrgyzstan and Kosovo).
Predictably, Aslan fails to mention any of this.
Finally, we get to Aslan’s claim that it is “actually, empirically, factually incorrect” that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a “Muslim-country problem.” Rather, he believes it is a “central African problem.” He continues to state that “nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.”
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
The idea that FGM is concentrated solely in Africa is a huge misconception and bandied about by apologists with citations of an Africa-focused UNICEF report which showed high rates of FGM in African countries. Apologists have taken that to mean that it is *only* Africa that has an FGM problem — even though FGM rates have not been studied in most of the Middle East or South and East Asia. Is it an academically sound practice to take a lack of study as proof of the non-existence of the practice? Especially when there is record of FGM common in Asian countries like Indonesia and Malaysia? It is also present in the Bohra Muslim community in India and Pakistan, as well as in the Kurdish community in Iraq — Are they to be discounted as “African problems” as well?
We do not yet have the large scale data to confirm the rates of FGM around the world, but we can safely assume that it is quite a bit more than just an “African problem.” It is very likely that FGM *did* originate in the Middle East or North Africa, but its extensive prevalence in Muslim-majority countries should give us pause. We are not attempting to paint FGM as only an Islamic problem but rather that Islam does bear some responsibility for its spread beyond the Middle East-North Africa region and for its modern prevalence.
So is there any credence to the claim that Islam supports FGM? In fact, there is. To name two, the major collections of the Hadith Sahih Muslim 3:684 and Abu Dawud 41:5251 support the practice. Of the four major schools of thought in Sunni Islam, two mandate FGM while two merely recommend it. Unsurprisingly, in the Muslim-majority countries dominated by the schools which mandate the practice, there is evidence of widespread female circumcision. Of particular note: None of the major schools condemn the practice.
This isn’t the first time Reza has stated half-truths in defense of his agenda. In his book No God But God, he misleads readers about many issues including the age of Muhammad’s child-bride Aisha. Scripture unanimously cites Aisha’s betrothal at age 6 or 7 and consummation at 9. Similarly, he quotes Mariya the Copt as being a wife of the prophet when overwhelming evidence points to her being Muhammad’s concubine.
We believe that Islam badly needs to be reformed, and it is only Muslims who can truly make it into a modern religion. But it is the likes of Reza Aslan who act as a deterrent to change by refusing to acknowledge real complications within the scripture and by actively promoting half-truths. Bigotry against Muslims is a real and pressing problem, but one can criticize the Islamic ideology without treating Muslims as themselves problematic or incapable of reform.
There are true Muslim reformists who are willing to call a spade a spade while working for the true betterment of their peoples — but their voices are drowned out by the noise of apologists who are all-too-often aided by the Western left. Those who accept distortions in order to hold on to a comforting dream-world where Islamic fundamentalism is merely an aberration are harming reform by encouraging apologists.

 

OCTOBER 2, 2014 BY JORDAN SMITH
An Open Letter to Reza Aslan

Hello Reza,

I have recently heard your outburst at Bill Maher, although you are normally a nice inclusion to the show, and you sometimes have important things to say, I think you have sadly diminished any respect I once had for you by your recent lies on CNN. It seems that after being told a truth you dislike on HBO, and being subjected to other humans who actually have the ability to call bull**** on your claims – you have run to CNN to discuss your point with two people who know as much about Islam as you do about the inner workings of time travel.

When you claim Islam is peaceful, ISIS is not Islamic & people are the problem not religion,two random eye-candy anchors from CNN can do nothing but smile and try to sound interesting, how can their media study diplomas come in useful here? Whereas Bill Maher (or his research team) could actually use evidence – like the Quran, the unchanged & perfect word of your God – to prove you wrong. You gained many fans and book sales by looking rather smart on fox news, but let’s be honest, that’s like being the nicest looking 62 year old virgin in Milwaukee – its value is nil.

Maher stated this:
” if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS; it has too much in common with ISIS.”

If you deny any of this, 1) Wake up and smell the coffee 2) Stop lying & 3) You best go out there and tell more than 112 million Muslims that they are doing it wrong (that is the conservative number of political radicalised Muslims, the ones who adhere to apostasy threats, family shame and cartoon anger are near the absolute majority.

On CNN you go on to say regarding female genital mutilation:

“I mean, the argument about the female genital mutilation being an Islamic problem is a perfect example of that. It’s not an Islamic problem. It’s an African problem …And that’s actually empirically factually incorrect … It’s a Central African problem. Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It’s a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It’s a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.”

WOW, hold on, you think Eritea is a Christian country? How strange that only 50% of the country is Christian, and 48% is Islamic. You forgot to mention that, maybe you thought nobody would fact check you, my bad.

Also Ethiopia a Christian country? Of course in the 4th century it adopted Christianity as the state religion – but unless you forgot, it is not the 4th century any more, how embarrassing of a “historian” to forget – Christianity is no longer the state religion, and only has 62% Christians and 34% Muslims which is no doubt more than 50%, but if the best evidence you have is calling 50% & 62% Christian majorities, then you have a big problem. Sorry again, I guess you thought being on CNN you wouldn’t get fact checked.
Let us look at the evidence against you, as the evidence you used yourself was dire and counter-productive to your own means. Is female genital mutilation an Islamic problem or not?

Somalia 98% FGM – 99.8% Muslim & less than 0.1% Christian
Djibouti 93% FGM – 94% Muslim 6% Christian
Eqypt 91% FGM – 94.9% Muslim & only 5.1% Christian
Guinea 96% FGM – 85% Muslim & only 8% Christian
Mali 89% FGM – 90% Muslim only 5% Christian
Sudan 88% FGM – 98% Muslim >2% Christian
Sierra Leone 88% FGM – 71% Muslim 27% Christian

Out of the 29 main countries that conduct female genital mutilation in Africa – only 8 are Christian majority countries, with the remaining 21 all being an Islamic majority, go figure! Why didn’t you mention these statistics? Because they clearly prove you wrong, that’s why.

Let’s look at your mathematics; you believe that because 21 out of 47 African countries adhere to the barbaric procedure of female genital mutilation, that it is an African problem. 21 out of 47 = 44.6%

But you don’t believe female genital mutilation is an Islamic problem, even when 21 out of the 30 countries in the world that practise FGM are Islamic? That = 70%

So 44.6% of African countries = African problem!
but 70% of Islamic countries = erm … nothing to do with Islam!

Logic fail.

The fact you dared to say “Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.” is disgustingly untrue, tell that statement to the 98% of women in somalia who have no clitoris or labia left you lying toad; it’s so untrue it is almost wickedly offensive, the evidence above shows you are either a liar or as you said on CNN, “stupid”.

I will not question your credentials (like many others have) I will simply remind people that when we listen to you, we are not hearing a moderate non-biased unaffiliated scholar, but a very confused individual that has taken to not only one true religion, but two, and three times at that. Instead of studying the truth of the scientific & historical claims (which would almost certainly lead to non-belief) you have bounced between religions like Katie Price through husbands – this plays out like a man who just cannot get over the fact he will die, so needs to fill the void by being subservient to a none answer.

“where did the universe come from?”

“Let’s make up something that cannot be verified, tested or even proven to exist, and call it that!”

Most people who have life long faith and lose it, go from believing to noticing how wrong they were and how indoctrinating religion really is – not believing in one silly man-made ideology (which you agree is the basis of faith) to another silly man-made ideology. Your life story (born in Iran to a Muslim family, converting to Christianity, converting back to Islam) doesn’t sound like a man trying to find truth, more a man trying to find faith, it doesn’t really matter which one, as long as you don’t have to own up to the reality of entropy.

Time magazine wrote “Aslan came to the conclusion that the claims of the Bible didn’t hold up.” I’m glad you used rationality, now can we sit down and place the same scrutiny on Islam? Because if you can use logic to dismiss Christianity, there is no chance you will fail at doing the same to Islam – they both make massive claims for themselves and they both fail miserably. You go on to say:

“As a scientifically minded person, if you asked me click here is it likely that a man rose from the dead? I would say, no.“

I am salivating at this, if you actually believe you can dismiss the validity of Jesus’ miracles using science (as we can) then you have either refused to investigate Mohammed and Allah, or you have done so and completely ignored the scientific findings, so which is it – are you lying or ignorant?

I have the honesty as an ex-Christian to see atrocities in the name of Christianity and accept that they are absolutely tied together – When I see Christian women being killed in Africa for speaking down to a man, or even turning her face from a man – I don’t lie, I don’t make excuses, I don’t run away from the responsibility I have gave myself by having knowledge of the situation. I simply quote the passages from the bible that directly mandate these killings and say “This is why religion has no place in our society, and this is why most Christians gave up on a literal bible many moons ago.” When I remember Hitler’s use of the treatment of Jesus by Jews to justify the final solution, or the African slave trade using the bible as justification, with passages explicitly explaining how one should beat his slave, I don’t pretend those passages don’t exist, I don’t lie about them, I don’t say vapid statements like “Don’t paint all Christians like this minority” or “They are extremists” I am a grown up, I admit the bible does mandate these actions, and use this as evidence as to why I do not follow the Bible. Slave owners, much like ISIS, are not extremists, they are what I like to call ‘literalists’ as they take to a literal translation of the Bible – as all “followers” should do. How can they be marginalised by others who don’t hold to the true word of their holy books? How dare an ex-Christian like me who attended church only for funerals say that a slave owner who recited the passage below was not a Christian?:

“You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)“

This is the word of God – that last sentence almost makes it sound like a Jew had probably written it…

So why do you not have the same ability as I? Are you too biased to be honest to your audience? Why are you not truthful enough to tell people that ISIS are not only Islamic but take their faith more serious than any other so called Muslims? You can still stand by your fellow Muslims yet agree the only way to succeed in this century is to adapt and evolve into a more modern faith – this is why Christianity is most powerful – but to do that you must first own up and then subsequently disown the basic premise your old beliefs.

How can you, with a straight face denounce the work of ISIS yet know full well everything they do is a carbon copy of the will of Mohammed – Did the prophet attempt a peaceful caliphate? Or did he bring war? Does Islam give the freedom of leaving the faith, or does it hold a penalty of death? You know the answer to these questions, you know that ISIS have taken the Quran literally, as you should, if you truly are a Muslim, but you won’t admit it – because the current publicity campaign by Islam of using western PC sensibilities to gain popularity from moderates is working perfectly. Nevermore so in history has Islam been this favourable in the eyes of moderate Christians than in 2014. Quite ingenious of Islam I have to say; imagine if for the 500 years that Christianity spilled blood, murdered Muslims and Jews, burned converts at the stake and tortured apostates, that there had been a large Muslim community saying “Don’t be Christianophobic! Stop painting all Christians with the same brush!”

The mere thought is ridiculous.

You know you are being disingenuous, you know you are lying, your audience of low information voters and fans who line up in agreement, but won’t dare research to see what they are agreeing to don’t know any better, but you do. You have a responsibility to inform them of the truth.

You have said:

“I’m a person of faith, and the language that I use to define my faith, the symbols and metaphors that I rely upon to express my faith, are those provided by Islam because they make the most sense to me. The Buddha once said, “If you want to draw water, you don’t dig six 1-ft. wells, you dig one 6-ft. well.” Islam is my 6-ft. well. But I recognize that I am drawing the same water that everyone around me is.”

This last sentence is very poignant; I base every decision on scientific scrutiny, not just the ones that suit me like you do, therefore I can’t follow you down the path of believing nonsense. You are a wishy washy Muslim, you probably don’t believe a word of the Quran, but find that it is the faith of your people, and in turn align yourself as such. This is not a problem for me, although I find it sad and useless. What is a problem is you stand as a moderate, barely Muslim by any stretch of the imagination and then dare criticise the men and woman in the middle east who actually give a damn about their faith, the people who live by every word of the Quran and truly follow Islam. How dare such a diluted Muslim born in Iran no less take snipes at real Muslims in Iran who are fighting in a holy war, specifically mandated by them from their God and Holy book (the same holy book you have seemingly studied and chosen to ignore). You’re practically the same as a cultural Jew, who holds to none of the Dogma and believes none of the Holy Book, but just likes to keep some of the traditions because they feel guilt or it reminds them of their childhood. Again, this is your prerogative, but just as they cannot deny an orthodox Jew, you cannot deny a literal Muslim.

So in closing, please stop lying on CNN, because although you have mindless fans who will clap along, you also have informed debaters and fervent non-believers who actually fact check, like me – We, the informed: with our google, our evidence, our love of statistics, our willingness to open a Holy Book and our attitude towards learning as many true things and discarding as many false things as possible, will be on you like a fly on ****. You will be held accountable. Your claims can and will be verified independently and it will affect your reputation as a “scholar”.

Yours fai… truly,

Jordan Smith

http://atheistanalysis.com/open-letter-reza-aslan/

 

You are really ignorant.

 

I would say Maher is pretty far on the left. I like him.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/06/exc..._with_ben_affleck_were_not_crazy_tea_baggers/

EXCLUSIVE: Bill Maher on Islam spat with Ben Affleck: “We’re liberals! We’re not crazy tea-baggers”

Interviewer: So, look, you mentioned last night’s show. I’m not going to ask you to debate Islam with me; I’m sure you have more than enough people trying to do that with you right now —

Bill Maher: Yeah, let’s leave that for a while. I’ve said enough about that.

Interviewer: But I want to ask you how you felt the Ben Affleck/Sam Harris segment went. Did you feel frustrated as it was happening?

Bill Maher: I think Sam and I and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie and everyone who is basically making the same point, I think we all feel frustrated because I think we feel like the people who are arguing with us are not listening.

We’re liberals! We’re liberals. We’re not crazy tea-baggers, y’know, and so it’s kind of hard to be making this case — based on facts, based on polling, I think based on what everybody really knows… I mean, do the people arguing with us, would they really open a lesbian art gallery in Ramallah? [Laughs] Or Karachi? Or Cairo? I don’t know if they would back up what they’re saying with actions.

We are not bigoted people. On the contrary, we’re trying to stand up for the principles of liberalism! And so, y’know, I think we’re just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group] people perceive as a minority.

Interviewer: Did you expect Affleck to get as upset as he did —

Bill Maher: You know, I don’t want to talk about this. You just said we’re not going to talk about this and now we’re talking about it.

Interviewer: Well, I don’t want to debate the character of Islam with you, but I am interested in how the pushback you’re getting from liberals makes you feel about your place within contemporary liberalism. Do you feel like the intensity of the criticism is forcing you out of the community or do you more take the position that arguments can be painful but they’re ultimately healthy?

Bill Maher: It is healthy; and also, I don’t care about any community. I’ve always said what I believed and anyone who does not like healthy debate probably isn’t watching [my] show to begin with.

And again: If you’re a liberal, stand up for liberal principles. I’m the liberal in this debate.

Interviewer: Right, but if you don’t care about being part of the liberal community, does it really matter if you’re the liberal? Is the label, group, tribe, etc., you associate yourself with important?

Bill Maher: No. I mean, I’ve never joined the Democratic Party. I’m proud to be a liberal, I think liberal principles have always been what I’ve stood up for, but I don’t really need the affirmation of an entire community and I certainly don’t need to agree with the majority of liberals on everything. Mostly, I think we’re in agreement; and sometimes my own audience has booed me because they don’t agree with what I’m saying.

But I’ll tell you something interesting — and then I am going to get off the subject because we’re here to talk about “Flip a District,” was my understanding — what I think is interesting is that the audience, my studio audience, has really come around on this issue. When I used to talk about it, it was just either stony silence or outright booing and now I notice quite a shift.

Interviewer: Do you think that’s because of ISIS?

Bill Maher: No. No, I don’t think it’s about ISIS, I just think it’s because we’ve explained [our position] more and explained it better.

But when I talked about it at the end of last week’s show, they stood up at the end — they cheered during it and they stood up at the end. And when I introduced the topic last night, I’d say about half the audience gave a cheer when I said we need to stand up for liberal principles.

So I think it’s just how you frame it. And there’s a knee-jerk reaction sometimes among liberals — “Oh, we need to be protective of a group that certainly does face prejudice and bigotry in America” (and I’m certainly against that) — but we need to understand that it’s a wider issue.