Bill Maher's take on Islam. Do you agree?

Progressive comedian Bill Maher called out Charlie Rose on his PBS show earlier this week after the host argued there are radical elements in Islam just like there are in Christianity.

Maher began by criticizing former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean for attempting to distance the Islamic State from the Islamic religion.

“It is true,” Rose said.

“It is not true,” Maher shot back, saying there is a “connecting tissue” there.

After asking Rose to let him finish, Maher said, “There are illiberal beliefs that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people that—“

Interrupting his guest again, Rose claimed a “vast number of Christians too” hold such beliefs.

“No, that’s not true. Not true,” Maher proclaimed. “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it.”

When Rose asked Maher how he knows that “vast majorities of Muslims” actually “condone violence,” he said many Muslims “shout it.” He also cited a Pew poll conducted in Egypt previously that showed more than 80 percent of Muslims believe stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery.

“So, to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong. It is not like other religions,” Maher added.

Maher likely doesn’t particularly enjoy defending Christianity against Islam as he openly states he believes all religions are “stupid.”


Watch the following video for the interview segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjInNxIwfRw#t=235

For a start, his assertion that the acts of Al Qeada (and other such groups) and Isis are Islamic, is not just naive but helps propagate hatred for Muslims.

For those who are interested in the truth, the ideology of these terrorists is not Islam or the Quran but QUTBISM. Syed Qutb justified the killing of all those who don't follow his interpretation of Islam, including most Muslims who referred to as Takfiri.

Maher is famous for several great political points over the years.

One of his latest is Republicans who claim that Obama lacks leadership. "WTF??? What would you have done differently?" asks Meher.

You got policy. You got resources. You got ships. You got airplanes. You got tanks. You got soldiers. WTF is 'leadership?' It's just a fancy way of saying you would have caused a different kind of trouble.

I like him.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:For a start, his assertion that the acts of Al Qeada (and other such groups) and Isis are Islamic, is not just naive but helps propagate hatred for Muslims.

For those who are interested in the truth, the ideology of these terrorists is not Islam or the Quran but QUTBISM. Syed Qutb justified the killing of all those who don't follow his interpretation of Islam, including most Muslims who referred to as Takfiri.

You claim that Syed Qutb was not Muslim, yet he was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. His writings (Qutbiyyun) include Islamism, Islamization and Gender segregation, and what do we find today rampant among Muslims? It's like saying that Pope Gregory was not Christian because he persecuted the Cathars.

It is what it is.

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:For a start, his assertion that the acts of Al Qeada (and other such groups) and Isis are Islamic, is not just naive but helps propagate hatred for Muslims.

For those who are interested in the truth, the ideology of these terrorists is not Islam or the Quran but QUTBISM. Syed Qutb justified the killing of all those who don't follow his interpretation of Islam, including most Muslims who referred to as Takfiri.

You claim that Syed Qutb was not Muslim, yet he was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.  His writings (Qutbiyyun) include Islamism, Islamization and Gender segregation, and what do we find today rampant among Muslims?  It's like saying that Pope Gregory was not Christian because he persecuted the Cathars.

It is what it is.

Where did I say Qutb wasn't a Muslim?

What he prescribed was terror against all, including Muslims who do not subscribe to his personal philosophy of Islam. This gave terror groups justification to kill anyone, including non combatants (civilians).

Your view 'it is what it is', is just plain ignorant. This is not a view that is 'rampant amongst Muslims'.

Ah, just sounds like Maher wants to lump all Muslims together. I like a lot of what he says too, but he's not infallible

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:For a start, his assertion that the acts of Al Qeada (and other such groups) and Isis are Islamic, is not just naive but helps propagate hatred for Muslims.

For those who are interested in the truth, the ideology of these terrorists is not Islam or the Quran but QUTBISM. Syed Qutb justified the killing of all those who don't follow his interpretation of Islam, including most Muslims who referred to as Takfiri.

You claim that Syed Qutb was not Muslim, yet he was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.  His writings (Qutbiyyun) include Islamism, Islamization and Gender segregation, and what do we find today rampant among Muslims?  It's like saying that Pope Gregory was not Christian because he persecuted the Cathars.

It is what it is.

Where did I say Qutb wasn't a Muslim?

What he prescribed was terror against all, including Muslims who do not subscribe to his personal philosophy of Islam. This gave terror groups justification to kill anyone, including non combatants (civilians).

Your view 'it is what it is', is just plain ignorant. This is not a view that is 'rampant amongst Muslims'.

yep people seem to mix up what 'Moderate Muslims' are saying with the 'no true scotsman' fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

I understand what your saying to be...
You can be a Muslim and a terrorist, but not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists as Muslim  

Where I think the US is making a huge mistake is where Washington tends to simplify the case.

As you point out Zack, there are many different factions of Islam.  Then there is the basic schism of Sunni and Shi'ite.  And there are a million different splinters of each...doctrinal splinters, and political splinters.

So far, ISIL has declared its enemy to be Bashar al-Assad and his government.  But ISIL is also rabidly anti-Shi'ite.  So, when we defeat ISIL (as everyone is confident will happen), on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, who do we declare the winner?  Assad?  Or, have we been working on behalf of Iran..the single champion of Shi'ism.

This shows the folly of the whole fookin' thing.  There are so many schisms in the whole Islamic mass, that it all has no meaning.  For the west, it's a recipe for perpetual war.  As I said before, we'd just be playing a game of Wack-a-Mole.

I'm not sure what 'defeating ISIS' will mean or look like. Do you destroy the leadership, have to kill all of them,...?

One thing I do know, there will be no winners. Just another type of problem that will fill the power vacuum.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I'm not sure what 'defeating ISIS' will mean or look like. Do you destroy the leadership, have to kill all of them,...?

One thing I do know, there will be no winners. Just another type of problem that will fill the power vacuum.

My point exactly.

Maher likely doesn’t particularly enjoy defending Christianity against Islam as he openly states he believes all religions are “stupid.”


Watch the following video for the interview segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjInNxIwfRw#t=235

I certainly agree with this bit.  I think the world would be a far happier place without religion but I suppose people would find other reasons to kill each other en masse.

Frazzled wrote:

Maher likely doesn’t particularly enjoy defending Christianity against Islam as he openly states he believes all religions are “stupid.”


Watch the following video for the interview segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjInNxIwfRw#t=235

I certainly agree with this bit.  I think the world would be a far happier place without religion but I suppose people would find other reasons to kill each other en masse.

I've said here before, I don't think religion is really a reason that people kill each other -- at least not a reason leaders declare war. They couch their decisions in religious language to make it more palatable, but I think the main reason people have always fought one another has been lack of or desire for more resources.

For most of human history, war has taken the form of raids by one tribe against another to take the other side's stuff. We just dress it up more now to make it seem noble.

This is actually related to the religion and morality thread.

Religion does rationalise to give a moral code. And therefore can be used to justify war and killing.

But as we've discussed, you don't need religion to have the same moral code because everyone is rational. So you can justify war without being religious.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:This is actually related to the religion and morality thread.

Religion does rationalise to give a moral code. And therefore can be used to justify war and killing.

But as we've discussed, you don't need religion to have the same moral code because everyone is rational. So you can justify war without being religious.

Hell Yeah
When we Finally get rid of Religion we can start fighting Because Some Infidels THINK Darwin thought up evolution, When Every Good and Right person KNOWS it was Wallace....
Death to the Infidels ::pntyswrd:: ::pntyswrd:: ::pntyswrd:: ::pntyswrd::