Bill Maher's Un-Cool Muslim Bashing

His loose accusations undermine America's progress in protecting minorities.



HBO funny man Bill Maher briefly interrupted his regularly scheduled conservative bashing last week to attack his fellow liberals. Why? Because, apparently, they haven't offered sweeping denunciations of Islam—a religion that, in Maher's book, betrays everything liberals stand for: tolerance, free speech and equality for women.

Far be it for a libertarian like me to defend liberals from a liberal, but such restraint on their part reflects not cowardice or hypocrisy. Rather, it is emblematic of this country's fundamental decency that has allowed it to protect its religious minorities.

Maher is an arch atheist who regards all religions as awful. However, he thinks that Islam's inherently violent nature makes it particularly so. And he agrees with American Enterprise Institute's Aayan Hirsi Ali that liberals ought to stop pretending that a moderate form of Islam is even possible right now.

Maher's bold generalization might sound hip and cool—but it is actually false and dangerous (and I say this as an atheist born in the Hindu faith that has historically been at loggerheads with Islam.)

For starters, it ignores the 300 million Muslims—the size of America's population—in the world who are Sufis, a mystical form of Islam that is essentially pacifist and believes that the path to God is through music and dance.

Worse, Maher doesn't understand one can't characterize a whole faith as extremist without also legitimizing the idea that extreme measures are necessary to control it.

That's something even the un-cool George Bush instinctively understood. That's why he took pains to stress that America's beef wasn't with Islam—only the extremists perverting their faith. The upshot was that even though the attack killed 3,000 Americans, America avoided a backlash against Muslims. To be sure, a handful of innocent Asians, some of who weren't even Muslims, suffered random attacks, but there would have been far more bloodshed if Bush had followed Maher-style Muslim bashing.

Contrast this with India, my native country, where Maher-style denunciations of Muslims are part and parcel of the political culture. Barely six months after 9/11, about 2,000 Muslims were butchered in a pogrom in the state of Gujarat. (The governor on whose watch this happened just became the prime minister of India this week.)

India's majority Hindu population has historically had tense relations with the country's Muslim minority so anti-Muslim violence is nothing new. And in this case, the proximate cause of the massacre was retribution for some 50 Hindu pilgrims who died in a train fire that Muslims were rumored to have caused.

But the larger cause was that post-9/11, Maher-type talk of rising Islamofascism raised anti-Muslim sentiment in the country to a fevered pitch. It legitimized the ongoing demonization of India's Muslims, leaving the country with few inner resources to contain the violence against them.

But America's record of protecting Muslim minorities is not only better than India's troubled democracy, but also less troubled Western ones. Indeed, despite 9/11, anecdotal evidence compiled by human rights groups suggests that Muslims experience no more hate crimes in America than in other European countries —and perhaps fewer.

This is a great accomplishment, but it isn't automatic. It stems from bitter experience, and shouldn't be taken for granted.

There are two ways to follow one's convictions: By embodying them or by going after those who don't.  

America took the second route when, in its zeal to defeat Communism, it developed an ugly preoccupation with the enemy.  That led to over-zealous interventionism abroad and McCarthyism at home — which undermined, rather than helped, the cause of freedom.

Partly because of such excesses, America has taken the first route post 9/11. There is a clear recognition this time that America cannot throw its core constitutional protections under the bus to pursue terrorists. This has led to vigilance about the due process violations of the Patriot Act, the rise of the surveillance state and, yes, racial profiling of Muslims (which Maher supports).

One can disagree over whether the country has struck the right balance between security and civil liberties. But one can't disagree that this is a far better conversation to have than the one in India: Whether it can prevent more Muslim bloodshed?

This is the accomplishment that Maher's efforts to taunt his fellow liberals into joining his anti-Muslim broadsides will undermine. They should firmly decline.

A version of this column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner

NEXT: Off-Duty Buffalo Cops Involved in Near Fatal Beating; Some Cops Troubled, Talk to Newspaper

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fucking retarded. Not reading it.

    Nice work, using that anti-Semitic picture to make your point.

    1. Nice work, using that anti-Semitic picture to make your point.

      Speaking of retarded…

    2. Are all caricatures that feature a large nose antisemetic? Although Maher is Jewish on his mother’s side.

      1. I dislike Maher more than pretty much anyone. I think the implications are pretty clear here.

        1. The temptation to quote Life of Brian is nearly overwhelming.

          1. Blessed are the cheesemakers ?

            1. MR. CHEEKY: I was only asking her to shut up, so I can hear what he’s saying, Big Nose.

              MRS. BIG NOSE: Don’t you call my husband ‘Big Nose’!

              MR. CHEEKY: Well, he has got a big nose.

    3. Submit your new multicultural overloads!

  2. *tip-toes carefully through thread*

    1. *streaks naked through it while screaming*

  3. “HBO funny man…”

    An inaccuracy right off the bat.

      1. My fave. About 100 views of that vid are mine.

      2. I sure miss him.

      3. He was a neo-con apologist who equated opposition to a bullshit war with appeasement of Saddam Hussein. You think Leftist opposition to the Iraq War was because we found George Bush stupid? How about that he murdered 5,000 Americans and over a hundred thousand Iraqis? Given the rank Boooosch apologia on this website it’s no wonder you like his “left-wing” lapdog.

        1. Wow, thanks for pointing this out, because there was no opposition to the Iraq war on this website or in these comments (unless you count virtually every story and every fucking comment).

          Also, thanks for pointing out (Stalinist fashion) that one CANNOT like a guy such as Hitchens for his incisive criticism of the powerful and the dishonest while disagreeing with him about the Iraq war. A person is either on the side of the revolution, or a counter-revolutionary tapeworm objectively aiding imperialism.

          Glad you were here to clear that up.

          1. Purity Test Failures! are always the sign of undeveloped, juvenile intellects.

            1. Sometimes failure of such a test is relevant when someone presents their ideas as libertarianism to the world, while in fact they are not libertarian. Example; Steve Chapman.

              1. Even then, it should be an argument of the type:

                a) Steve Chapman isn’t a representative Libertarian because he doesn’t espouse very many Libertarian positions

                and not of the type

                b) Steve Chapman isn’t a Libertarian because he doesn’t agree with me on point X

          2. I often wonder how amsoc doesn’t choke on his own rabies foam.

            1. possible obamacare success story?

  4. There is a clear recognition this time that America cannot throw its core constitutional protections under the bus to pursue terrorists

    On whose part? Not the governments, the Supreme Courts, or whichever party happens to be occupying the White House at a given moment.

    1. Because it did that already in 2012 with the USA PATRIOT (Fuck Yeah!) ACT?

  5. Hmmm, wondering how one can infer racism from a caricature drawing. Have you seen Bill Maher’s face lately? That drawing was being generous to his actual schnoz.

    1. I’ve heard that as you grow older, your nose keeps growing even though the rest doesn’t. (Does this mean you become more dishonest with age?)

      1. no it means you become more jewish with age

  6. If he were really funny, he’d spend time maniacally attacking Parsis, blaming Zoroaster for inciting a cult of death and destruction and for every arson committed on the planet.

    1. I heard that under Xerxes slavery in Persia was prohibited.

      Of course everyone was technically a slave under him. Still rulership of a god king is a different sort of slavery then say what the Spartans were doing to the Helots

      I wonder if that prohibition of slavery comes from the teachings of Zoroasterism.

      Also the Red Queens religion in game of thrones is pretty much a copy of Zoroasterism. Ahura Mazda is the Last Hero and Azor Ahai.

      1. It would take little to make a case for it being a secret religion with aspirations of global conquest, even though it’s probably closer to the opposite. Probably.

        1. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have Satan and God, good and evil in eternal battle.

          Pretty sure Zoroasterism already conquered the world.

          1. See? Not knowing it, I’ve unveiled the greatest conspiracy ever.

          2. Judaism doesn’t conceptualize Satan as the embodiment of evil and doesn’t pit him in a battle against God either.

      2. Of course everyone was technically a slave under him. Still rulership of a god king is a different sort of slavery then say what the Spartans were doing to the Helots

        Did they make some sort of video pledging to serve?

        1. Nah…

          I think it was more the get on your knees and bow and if you don’t you die a horrible death along with everyone in your family.

          I don’t know for a fact…only that sort of thing seems par the course for god-kings.

          Obama is more of a demi-god-lord. If you don’t bow you get audited by the IRS and get branded as a racist.

          1. “Obama is more of a demi-god-lord. If you don’t bow you get audited by the IRS and get branded as a racist.”

            I’d say Obama is more of an aspiring God King.

      3. This is true for all the 300 propaganda, there was no slave culture in the Persian empire. Even as late as the Roman conquest, there was still a strong cultural feeling that taking slaves in war was wrong. The whole Roman conceit of charging crushing interest to conquered people and then forcing them to sell their families into slavery probably didn’t help the matter then. Not sure if the Greeks were of a similar bent.

        1. Well, if you’re talking about the Spartans, they enslaved large numbers of helots. Who were fellow Greeks.

          1. Right, but the Romans pretty much used usury to induce huge numbers of slaves coming onto the market to keep slave prices low. I wonder if the Greeks were quite so rapacious.

            1. Greeks? Rapacious? Are we talking about the same Greeks?

              1. Probably not. I’m not super-clear beyond Thucydides History on Greek habits. Other than buggery.

                1. Well, there’s was the buggery. And the slavery. And the constant warfare. But we got some funny plays, a couple of epics, and some creative ways of looking at existence.

        2. Not sure if the Greeks were of a similar bent.

          Xenophon and Alexander didn’t have a problem with taking slaves.

          Alexander was a Macedonian though. Xenophon was an Athenian but he lived under Spartan rule as did all of Greece at the time…and he was more then a little sympathetic to Sparta.

          Still I am pretty sure Athens had slaves.

          1. They sure did. That’s a classic argument, how much a slave society contributed to making classical Athens what it was.

  7. Well, Maher has drug Christianity and Judaism throgh the gutter for the last five or ten years. I take it Ms. Dalmia has been equally critical of this long history?

    1. ^^THIS^^

      Maybe Maher is wrong for doing this. But, Dalmia, someone who sat on her ass and said nothing as he did the same thing to Christianity and Judaism, shows herself to be a hypocrite and a coward by pointing it out.

      1. Maher is not equal in his criticism of Christianity and Judaism.

        In fact the recent show with Matt on it he pointed out that Christianity is less extreme then Islam.

        And on that same show he gave no quarter saying all Muslims were extreme Islamists.

        The character of his criticism is very different between the two.

        1. The character of the two religions is different, thus the difference in characterizations.

          Would you feel someone had made an unfair comparison if they couldn’t find as many nice things to say about Charles Manson as Calvin Coolidge?

          1. Calvin can’t surf?

  8. Why does Islam not deserve at least the same bashing that Maher, and many Reasonoids as well, dish out to Christianity?

    When Islam’s peaceful adherents even pretend to try curbing the bloodthirsty among their coreligionists I’ll listen to criticism of Maher. Until then bash away.

    1. I see the difference in that anti-Muslim hysteria results in people freaking out about a mosque being built in their town or too close to the WTC.

      That does impinge on religious freedom and is an exceptionally stupid example of irrational feelings towards Muslims.

      1. I agree with you.

        We really can’t start looking at the race or religions of criminals and equate that with the entire group.

        But people do this all of the time.
        Blacks are muggers
        Latinos are womanizers
        Whites are racist
        Chinese are smart
        Jews are cheap
        Muslims are bombers

        This is a terrible way to look at people and is not fair.

        1. Is truth a defense? What if it is a fact that blacks commit crimes at several times the rate of other races? What if it is true that Chinese gain admissions to prestigious colleges out of proportion to their representation in society? What if it is true that Jews have a long history in the banking industry and have cultivated a culture of thrift and common sense. What if Muslims are dramatically overrepresented in committing acts of terrorism?

          As a white man, I’m a racist, because in modern parlance, racism is the sin of noticing.

          1. “Is truth a defense?”
            Over more than one billion of muslims, how many are terrorist ? Very less than 0,1 % ! So “muslims are bombers” is absolutely not true.

            In strict logic “muslim are bombers” is true only if all muslims are bombers, without any exception at all. In every day language “muslim are bombers” is true if a majority, or at least a significant minority, is bomber : less than 0,1% does not qualify.

            “As a white man, I’m a racist, because in modern parlance, racism is the sin of noticing.” No, you are racist because of your overgeneralization.

            1. Try reading for comprehension. He said:

              What if Muslims are dramatically overrepresented in committing acts of terrorism?

              Not every Muslim need be a terrorist in order for most terrorists to be Muslim. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the latter statement, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. I’m just saying that from a standpoint of logic, “dramatically overrepresented” != “all members of X identity group behave exactly the same way”

            2. There are 2 billion Muslims on earth and at your figure (probably low) of 0.1% terrorists, that’s 2 million people willing to die to see you die. There are another 100-200 million funding the killers and another 200-300 million saying “right on!”

          2. As a white man, you’re an idiot.


            1. Your contribution would be laughable if it weren’t so laughably pathetic.

      2. “I see the difference in that anti-Muslim hysteria results in people freaking out about a mosque being built in their town or too close to the WTC.”

        One of the first things Muslims do upon conquering a city is build a mosque.

        1. Derp

          1. Yup. Just a coincidence. Freaky!

            1. I know. The only logical explanation as to why Muslims would want to build a mosque is that they’re plotting to conquer that city. It’s science.

              1. You’re putting the cart ahead of the camel.

                1. NYC and that random town in Tennessee are now a part of the Muslim caliphate? I must have missed that.

                  1. They’ll take whatever they can get. The goal is all the towns in Tennessee and New York, then Muhammad can come back and party with us.

              2. Not ‘plotting to’.

    2. and many Reasonoids


      1. It’s not a complete day at H&R without absurd Christian persecution complexes being busted out.

        1. Of course you say that, seeing as how the Italians crucified Jesus. J’accuse!

          1. But what have the Romans ever done for us?

            1. Well, there’s our political system. And toga parties.

            2. But what have the Romans ever done for us?

              They gave us Harry Reid.

              1. the aqueduct ?

            3. Err…

              As a descendant of Celts, Germans and Gauls they butchered and enslaved my ancestors for a few centuries.

              Of course the Celts, Germans and Gauls butchered and enslaved themselves for millennia…

              1. I, too, am descended from the victims of Roman aggression. I, too, hunger for revenge. Which explains the feud between me and Episiarch.

      2. You aren’t trying to say that Reasonoids don’t mock Christians, are you?

        I’m a complete agnostic myself, but I like equal opportunity bashing and dislike a group getting immunity from lambasting for PC reasons.

        1. That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’ve only ever seen Christians bashed for trying to impose their religious beliefs via government force, and then the criticism was not extended to all Christians.*

          *Except for dumbasses like shriek, who is bigoted against all religious people.

          1. Well, I put killing masses of people at least on a par of unacceptability with trying to use government to impose religious beliefs on others.

            But that’s just me.

            1. What version of do you read where Islam/Muslims don’t get bashed more than Christianity/Christians in the comments?

              1. This version.

                1. I reiterate Episiarch’s remark about the Christian persecution complex some people have. Christianity and Christians are at times criticized, but you’re extremely biased if you think that most people here take a harsher view of Christianity and Christians than they do of Islam and Muslims.

                  1. Maybe it’s just that Christianity comes up more?

                    Because I’m an atheist [and thus have no Christian persecution complex], and it seems like there’s generally more mockery of Christianity than of Islam.

                    But it may simply be that Christian contexts occur more often here, focused as Reason is on Western and especially American politics and culture.

                    Which is fair.

                    1. In terms of volume, that may be true, but as you mentioned, even if so, that’s only because Christianity is far more prominent in American culture than Islam is. In terms of how harshly people critique each religion, it’s not even close.

                    2. Lol. Yeah, let’s go take a look at the last gay mawwiage thread and see some fine examples of Christianity and Islam receiving precisely equal treatment for their precisely equal teachings on the subject.

                      Or let’s have yet another discussion about how it’s philosophically wrong to string the WBC pricks up with giant pink dildos stuffed up their asses despite how viscerally satisfying it would be to do it.

                      And then let’s have another 400 comment thread where we all take turns reminding Eddie that the pope is a communist and Catholics like to fuck little boys.

                      And then let’s substitute Islam for Christianity in any of the above constructions and watch the victimology brigade go into full whinge mode whilst using “racist” as a punctuation mark (it’s not without a hint of irony that these are the first people to scream “VICTIM COMPLEX” at anybody who thinks their criticism is disproportionate)

                      Give me a break.

                      Islam often gets kid glove treatment because most of us are either sympathetic to the police abuse endured by peaceful Muslim groups post-9/11, or the aforementioned victimology brigade sympathizing with whomever it is popular to sympathize with and then working backwards from there to an ideological justification for it. Hinduism has been treated more harshly (mostly by Shikha).

  9. I’m a big fan of Bill Maher and libertarians. Both say and do things that I’m not happy with.

    However, it doesn’t stop me from coming here or seeing Bill Maher.

    I feel that the religion has been used as a tool to conn the simple man into believing and acting in the ways that their non-religious leaders want. So many people died in the name of God. And, not because of God, but because of the custodians of people using God as an instrument of Hate, a justification for war and murder, and the justification for letting people starve and not allowing everyone to join in the happiness.

    People like Bill Maher are misguided. We humans are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God. You can say that all living things are equal in the eyes of God.

    Islamic Terror didn’t come out of nowhere. Arabs are no more evil than Jews or Christians or Mexicans. However, American policy towards them is why they hate us. Since 1947 and the Israel thing, this world has not seem a minute of peace and we’ve facilitated that hostility. And, it bit us in the ass several times including Beirut during Reagan and the World Trade Center during Bush and Clinton. The human price and capital paid to keep 8 million jewish people happy in Israel has been pretty high.

    1. Since 1947 and the Israel thing, this world has not seem a minute of peace and we’ve facilitated that hostility.

      The ME was all gumdrops and cherry trees before America and THE JOOS ruined it!

      1. That is the left/Muslim PR stance these days, isn’t it?

        1. He was great in Lawrence of Arabia. Then again, so was most everyone else in that film.

          Lean could certainly direct a mighty epic. If he can be revived as a head in a jar, I’d like him to take a shot at Dune.

          1. Lean could certainly direct a mighty epic. If he can be revived as a head in a jar, I’d like him to take a shot at Dune.

            There was a made-for-tv of Dune better than the movie. Even IMDB rates it better.

            1. Anyone who doesn’t like the Lynch version is functionally retarded. Yeah, I said it. Because it’s David Lynch and it’s great.

              (This does not include the 4-hour non-Lynch cut of the movie that he disavowed and made them do an Alan Smithee credit because he hated it so much.)

              1. No. Wrong. Go fondle your weirding-module, you sandworm fucker.

                1. No. Wrong. Go fondle your weirding-module, you sandworm fucker.

                  Can’t we like them both?

                  Also Lynch has an advantage as he did not take on the horrible squeals.

                  1. No, you may not. Go to your room and perform the gom jabbar test on yourself.

              2. I’ve always thought that most of the scenes in that movie were great (including Sting, oiled up in sci-fi Speedos) but it just doesn’t come together unless you’re a huge fan of the books.

                1. but it just doesn’t come together unless you’re a huge fan of the books.


                  I did not read the books until nearly a decade after i saw the movie and i loved it.

                  If only because i was of the age expecting Star Wars as sci-fi and then seeing Dune and having my mind blown.

                  1. Well, maybe it’s just me. It just occurred to me the more I watched it that there was a whole backstory that was just missing from the story of the movie. But that’s the only part I didn’t really warm to. The look of the costumes and sets (even if they did wobble suspiciously sometimes) made it a movie worth watching.

                2. I’ve always thought that most of the scenes in that movie were great (including Sting, oiled up in sci-fi Speedos)

                  You probably liked Sean Connery in Zardoz, too.


                    1. Still can’t get over him using his daughter for the armored sex scene in Excalibur.

                  2. You probably liked Sean Connery in Zardoz, too.

                    She said “oiled”, not “sweaty and gross”.

                  3. Only if I had a weed-whacker or a few gallons of Nair.

                3. “most of the scenes in that movie were great . . . but it just doesn’t come together”

                  That’s what I’ve thought about almost every David Lynch movie I’ve ever seen.

                4. “but it just doesn’t come together unless you’re a huge fan of the books.”

                  I like it, but this was definitely my experience. I talked a friend into renting it on VHS (back in the day) and spent the whole movie attempting to fill in the why’s for all of their actions.

                  If you haven’t read the book, it’s hard to follow and not nearly as good a film.

            2. I’m thinking maybe Lynch wasn’t really the right guy for Dune. I didn’t mind the look or the casting, which I thought were both fine, for the most part, but he clearly didn’t get the story.

              Not that Dune is an easy thing to get on film.

              1. How did he not get the story? Sure, he took liberties and focused on certain things, but he got it well enough.

                You’re not the arbiter of what Frank Herbert meant, you big jerk!

                (runs off sobbing, curls up under Elephant Man poster)

                  1. Pro Libertate|5.19.14 @ 2:57PM|#

                    I am not an animal!


                    Is this an Elephant Man or Dune reference?



                    1. Good, you may be human.

                1. The Elephant Man is going to be on TCM tomorrow evening. Robert Osborne sat down with Mel Brooks to discuss several of the movies produced by his production company, which will be on tonight and tomorrow night.

            3. The documentary about Jodorowsky’s Dune is playing in Manhattan. I know what I’m doing at 3:00 tmrw.

              1. I want to see that. Not sure it would’ve worked, but it had some interesting names attached to it.

              2. It’s playing here too, but only at 2:20 PM which I can’t do. FUCK FUCK FUCK

                1. Check times again? Isn’t there usually a day showing and a night showing at “art houses”?

                  1. I looked. One theater, and only at 2:20. SIFF is on right now and so all the “art house” theaters are booked with that.

                    Maybe, just maybe, it will play through the weekend and I could go at 2:20 then.

                  2. Crap, it’s played here already.

          2. Doctor Zhivago is terrible. For starters, it takes the epilogue of the book and makes it the opening scene, thereby giving away the story.

              1. You probably like the theme song, too.

                1. What’s wrong with it? I mean, I don’t include it on my list of songs to listen to, no, but it seems okay to me.

            1. Doctor Zhivago is terrible. For starters, it takes the epilogue of the book and makes it the opening scene, thereby giving away the story.


              Lawrence dies in a motorbike accident.

              1. I read Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia last year. Pretty good, but Lawrence was weirder than you’d have thought just watching the movie and/or reading his works.

    2. Have you run this theory by Mayor Guiliani? “Blowback” is a completely unknown and discredited explanation. Apparently the U.S. roaming around the world looking for dragons to slay will never result in any adverse reactions by homicidal maniacs or religious nutjobs..

      1. It didn’t result in adverse reactions for the US in Latin America or for France’s quests in its ‘near abroad’.

        Blowback is at least 95% bullshit.

        1. It didn’t result in adverse reactions for the US in Latin America

          ORLY? Not even a little event called the Cuban Missile Crisis? But anyway, blowback isn’t going to manifest itself the same way in every region, so you probably won’t see any Ecuadorian suicide bombers any time soon.

        2. Richard Nixon was nearly killed by an anti-American mob in Venezuela in 1958 when he was Vice President. U.S. intervention into Latin America certainly produced a lot of animosity over the years. There’s nothing about the theory of blowback that says that this will always result in terrorism, or that it is the only explanation for terrrorism. Some idiots may interpret it that way, but that doesn’t make it invalid anymore than idiots arguing for any other position invalidate it.


        3. And apparently you have never heard of this


        4. We can thank U.S. actions in Latin America for the appeal of Communism in many places.

          1. So, if the US had ignored Latin America, Soviet propaganda and local corruption wouldn’t have led to Communism having an appeal there?

            I am finding that very hard to believe.

            Remember that the US is not the Prime Mover to which all other nations, groups, and peoples purely react.

            They have their own interests, motives, and desires, and act in service of those.

            US actions have effects – but they’re not the sole, and often not the primary causes of other actions.

            1. “So, if the US had ignored Latin America, Soviet propaganda and local corruption wouldn’t have led to Communism having an appeal there?”

              That’s oversimplifying things, but communism would have had less appeal in that alternative scenario. It’s very common in places like Latin America to associate capitalism with Western Imperialism (heck, this happens in the US and Europe a lot as well), which certainly helps explain why an anti-capitalist ideology like communism might be attractive to some.

              1. If an anti-capitalist ideology like communism is attractive to some, it is probably because it offers the majority poor in some shithole third world country the promise of sharing their oppressors’ wealth, which has usually been ill-gotten and/or kept.

      2. Rudy was running for his life right next to me on 9/11/2001.

        He is one of those Macho “We are not afraid of terrorist” guys that was smart enough to put the NYC Emergency command center in One World Trade Center.

        He believes that these people were sent by the devil and US policy had nothing to do with it,

        1. Oh US policy had lots to do with. The failure to end states that sponsor anti-American terrorism lead to thousands of deaths.

          1. This sort of sounds like a liberal argument for when a gov’t program fails, the only answer is more gov’t. Stop resisting you damn Arabs!

    3. A Lesson In Hate: How an Egyptian student came to study 1950s America and left determined to wage holy war.

      The core problem with the United States, for Qutb, was not something Americans did, but simply what America was?”the New World…is spellbinding.” It was more than a land of pleasures without limit. In America, unlike in Egypt, dreams could come true. Qutb understood the danger this posed: America’s dazzle had the power to blind people to the real zenith of civilization, which for Qutb began with Muhammad in the seventh century and reached its apex in the Middle Ages, carried triumphantly by Muslim armies.

      You should read more than just the crap that appears in the New York Times. You might actually learn something.

      1. B-b-but only neocons believe that Jihadists hate us for our freedoms! BLOWBACK /peacenazis

        1. Yeah yeah Islam has some crazies and a large number of them are in the ruling classes…but if we stayed the fuck out of the middle east they really would not have the popular support or the easy targets (conveniently located in the middle east) they have right now.

          1. Should the Jews get out of the Middle East, too?

            1. Generally speaking, if the Israelis keep their heads down, the Sunnis and Shiites seem just as happy killing each other.

            2. Up to them. They got money they got technology they got men and women trained in combat hell they even got nukes.

              What the fuck do they need us for?

              Any existential payment the US owes for the holocaust or what ever weird reason you can think of that the US needs to be defending a country on the other side of the Atlantic ocean for, it has payed in spades.

              Also where the fuck is Europe? I will tell you where: it is RV vacation driving distance from Israel. Let the fucking Europeans keep the peace in their own neighborhood.

            3. I wasn’t aware that the United States was located in the Middle East, like Israel is.

              1. Just to clarify, are you arguing that it is the US role to pay for Israel’s defense?

                1. No, I don’t think we should pay for their defense, but I have no problem being allies with pro-US democracies, and no problem standing against anti-US non-democracies.

    4. All the trouble in the world started with the Jews and Americans in 1947? Are you still in, or just out of, college?

      1. Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.

        – Stephen Vizinczey

    5. “Islamic Terror didn’t come out of nowhere. Arabs are no more evil than Jews or Christians or Mexicans. However, American policy towards them is why they hate us. Since 1947 ”

      So this all started in 1947 huh ?

      Alice in 1683, on September the 11th, the Battle of Vienna between the Christians and the Muslim army went so bad for the Muslims that their army was totally destroyed. It set the Muslim expansion over Europe back by centuries.

      On September the 11th Alice.

      Does September the 11th ring any bells for you as a significant date Alice ?

      Hint: September the 11th was also the date of Benghazi.

      So what were you saying about 1947 ?

      Alice the Arabs don’t care about the Palestinians. To them the Pals are nothing but cannon fodder to throw at the Jews. The King of Jordan killed 20,000, men, women, and children of them at one whack for acting in Jordan like they act in Israel.

      Alice they hate us because we are infidels.

      1. Rick Santorum is that you? The Battle of Vienna has no relevance to modern terrorism. Also, do blame religion as the sole cause of aggressive warfare by non-Muslim countries? Or is it only Muslim countries that must only be influenced by religion when they engage in conquest?

        1. “The Battle of Vienna has no relevance to modern terrorism.”

          And if Muslim terrorists say it does to them, then what? Denial?

          1. I have no doubt that Muslim terrorists view the event as significant and mourn the Ottoman loss. Have any stated that that is the reason they commit acts of terror? And if so, do the actions of people 300 years later change the nature of the Battle of Vienna to an act of “Islamic terror” as alleged by OneOut?

            1. Calidissident|5.19.14 @ 6:49PM|

              change the nature of the Battle of Vienna to an act of “Islamic terror” as alleged by OneOut?”

              This has to be the most blatant and pitiful act of strawman construction I have ever witnessed.

              Dude you should at least wait for a few threads to give people a chance to forget what I actually said before you start lying about what I said.

        2. Calidissident|5.19.14 @ 3:26PM|#

          “Rick Santorum is that you? The Battle of Vienna has no relevance to modern terrorism.”

          The Khalifate that Osama was trying to reinstitute was originally destroyed on Sept 11th in Vienna and Osama attacked on Sept. the 11th. Benghazi was on the 11th. Sept 11th has become a date that even the current administration says is a special date for Islamists.

          But you know better huh ?

          Is that you Mulla Omar ?

          1. The Ottoman Empire continued for 240 years after the Battle of Vienna. It’s a historically important event, but it’s not an example of “Islamic terror” unless you want to stretch the term beyond all reasonable meaning.

            And did Osama pick 9/11 because of that or is that an assumption? Serious question. It’s seems much more likely that the Benghazi date is due to the 9/11/01 attacks than a battle 330 years prior.

            1. Calidissident|5.19.14 @ 6:48PM|#

              Yes the kaliphate continued to exist after The Battle of Vienna. ( notice how I refer to it as a battle and never did I call it an act of terror ? ) But the expansionism was beaten out of it in that battle and it’s power wanned until it went the way of all Empires.

              If you would be so kind as to point out my words where call it an act of terror I would be so thankful.

              Otherwise admit that you are arguing against yourself, and still not winning.

              “It’s seems much more likely that the Benghazi date is due to the 9/11/01 attacks than a battle 330 years prior.”

              It may seem like that to you as you attempt to “walk back the cat”.

              Seeing a string of incidents that are connected and trimming one off the end to suit your strawman isn’t demonstrating any intellectual capacity that you should be proud of.

        3. Also, do blame religion as the sole cause of aggressive warfare by non-Muslim countries?

          Lol. The important bit is kind of contained in your construction. There aren’t a lot of “non-Muslim” theocracies left, are there? The fact that they you had to use the term “non-Muslim” to differentiate the rest of the world from Islamic theocracies might clue you in to the fact that religion plays just a tiny role in the governance and diplomacy of those countries.

      2. ^^^This

    6. ” Since 1947 and the Israel thing, this world has not seem a minute of peace and we’ve facilitated that hostility.”

      Ha! Yeah, dumbass, it all started when the Jews were allowed to keep half the land formerly run by the Brits for their own state, and the Arabs invaded the new Israeli state. Over and over again.

      ” We humans are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God. ”

      Are you sure? ALL of us?

    7. If you’re historical perspective on anything is reliant on people of the past being stupid then you can be sure it is incorrect.

  10. For starters, it ignores the 300 million Muslims?the size of America’s population?in the world who are Sufis, a mystical form of Islam that is essentially pacifist and believes that the path to God is through music and dance.


    I thought they were all dead or dwindled to nothing 100s of years ago.

    Do they still drink? Did they ever drink. Rumi seemed like a he drank a lot.

    1. 300 million, as far as I can tell, includes a lot of very diffuse “influence”, rather than Sufi self-identification.

      And note in any case that that’s out of 1.5 billion self-identified Muslims in the world.

      And note that people identified as “Sufi” in that first definition are by no means all “pacifist” and find god “through music and dance”.

      Talk to me about how the Sufis are all moderates when Sufi leaders stop organizing to kill press freedom “because Mohammed”, okay?

      Yes, that’s not terrorism or especially “extreme”.

      No, it’s not compatible with (little-l) liberal culture.

      1. A couple of hawt white chicks I knew claimed to be Sufi. I’m sure that phase has long passed….

  11. Wow, these comments are bursting with derp.

    1. What, more pro-Parsism? It’s an insidious religion.


        1. Hah! Does your religion have a good god and an evil opponent? Then they’ve gotten to you, too.

      2. Just you leave me and my Morgoth-worshipping death cult alone!

  12. So Bill Maher says Islam is against tolerance, free speech and equality for women – and we get an article that says he’s wrong because Sufi’s and stuff? Really?

    Got any examples of The Prophet treating women particularly well in his life? Or being tolerant of non-believers and allowing dissent?

    1. Got any examples of The Prophet treating women particularly well in his life? Or being tolerant of non-believers and allowing dissent?

      Got any evidence that all Muslims hold the same beliefs?

      1. Nope.

        Got any more stupid questions?

        1. Then why did you imply they did? As if the actions of Mohammed cancel out the actions of hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims?

          1. Please point out where I used the word “they”.

            1. What exactly was the purpose of pointing out the behavior of Mohammed and contrasting it to Sufis then?

              1. He is The Prophet, and the example all devout Muslims should aspire to. If you don’t believe this, you just aren’t Muslim.

                1. In other words, you claim all Muslims hold the same intolerant beliefs, just as I originally inferred.

                  1. Only the devout.

                    Non-practicing / casual Muslims can believe anything they want. Just like there are plenty of Christians who have no idea what Jesus actually said – and lots of Jews who can’t remember half the Ten Commandments.

                    1. You must really be getting tired of moving those goalposts.

                    2. So believing what’s in the Koran and Hadiths has nothing to do with being Muslim? You just have to feel Muslim and believe whatever the hell you want?

                      Who is moving goalposts?

                    3. He is The Prophet, and the example all devout Muslims should aspire to. If you don’t believe this, you just aren’t Muslim.

                      Non-practicing / casual Muslims can believe anything they want.

                      You understand that not all Christians follow the Old Testament strictly, right?

                    4. Because parts of the Old Testament were superseded by Christ’s gospel and the Disciples’ Letters in the New Testament. (and probably influenced by the gospel writers who were finding more converts among the Gentiles)

                    5. Indeed. The Bible and Koran are not equivalent in many ways. See my comment below.

                    6. This is a pointlessly circular argument:

                      – “Peaceful Christians are that way (despite the old testament) because of their faith.”
                      – “Peaceful Muslims are that way in spite of their faith (despite the fact the Sufi’s have been around for a long time).”

                      It’s like a reverse No True Scottsman. Any counterexample against your position is clearly not a real muslim, precisely because real muslims are violent extremists, by definition.

                      If 300 million people self-identify as Muslim and are pacifists, I’m not going to tell them they’re doing it all wrong (guys, you should be killing people instead!), quite frankly.

                    7. No, it’s not circular at all, because the faiths aren’t the same, and the way they interpret their holy books aren’t that same.

                      Christians are peaceful in part because they had their religious wars centuries ago, and have generally adopted non-violent “live and let live” attitudes toward varying interpretations of the Bible.

                      In contrast, while many Muslims are live-and-let-live types, the official interpretations of the Koran are not. The major religious authorities, both Sunni and Shiite, are “fundamentalist.” While you can find Muslim clerics who say “Don’t kill the Jews right now,” you won’t find any who dispute that Allah told people to kill Jews, and that there’s nothing that supersedes that, in the way the New Testament supersedes the Old.

                    8. Christians are more peaceful because Christianity is more peaceful. Jesus was a pacifist by any measure. He also never married, never had children, never went to war, and never harmed anyone. He is the example Christians are taught to follow.

                      Mohommad was a warrior with a 6 year old wife and several other wives who killed people, led armies, and held slaves. His teaching were inherently violent to support the wars he wanted. He is the example Muslims are taught to follow. To even deny his perfection is heresy.

      2. Got any evidence that all Muslims hold the same beliefs?”

        The Koran ?

        1. You mean like the differing christian sects and… the Bible?

          1. That’s not what I mean.

            Care to try again ?

            Read some of the comments here about the difference between the Koran and the Bible.

            I don’t care to waste time trying to educate you. One of them is just s few posts above.

      3. Got any evidence that all Muslims hold the same beliefs?

        Muslims that don’t strive to live up to the example set by their most divine prophet are pretty sorry excuses for Muslims. You realize this is no different in character than saying:

        “Well, sure, that Jesus guy said some stupid shit, but what evidence do you have that Christians hold those same beliefs?”

        Well, uh, yeah, actually. If they didn’t hold the same beliefs as Jesus then they, by definition, wouldn’t be Christians. The founder of a religion generally does get a say in how his followers believe.

      4. Hint–Islam is a BELIEF SYSTEM

        So yes, there is evidence that the adherents of the belief system known as Islam might be adherents of the belief system they say they’re adherents of.

    2. here is some great Muslim public relations footage.

      1. well, damn. Someone got offended and removed the video. It was friendly, peace loving Iraqi muslims “relating” to their fellow muslims, one burst of AK fire and roadside bomb at a time.

        long story short, muslim “bashing” doesn’t exist. There is valid criticism of a lot of groups, cultures, etc. Obviously, one cannot lump all members together but at some point a spade is a spade.

        1. “at some point a spade is a spade”


        2. “Obviously, one cannot lump all members together, but I’m going to anyway.”

          1. but I didn’t. You just want me to.

            You CAN criticize Muslim and Arab culture without hating Muslims or Arabs. Something something marketplace of ideas. My “a spade is a spade” comment refers to the fact that, no matter how many apologists make excuses, at some point, we have to ask: who is beheading people here? and why? I think that is valid.

      2. “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy on shocking and disgusting content.”


    3. Well, by the standards of 7th century Arabia, he probably was fairly tolerant and allowing of dissent. But, there’s the rub, no?

    4. Or being tolerant of non-believers and allowing dissent?

      He didn’t kill everyone when he conquered Mecca.

      1. So, he tolerated the pagan temples? How many non-believers do they tolerate their now?

    5. Depends on the meaning of the word “tolerance.” Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims were considered to be second-class citizens, had to pay a tax, etc. but by the standards of the time, weren’t universally persecuted more than religious minorities in other countries throughout the entirety of the history of Islam. Conversion to Islam among the conquered populations was actually a pretty gradual process in many/most places.

      1. Hurried along a little with the above mentioned taxes, slavery, and the occasional raid.

        1. I agree that by modern standards, Islamic nations were not tolerant historically. By the standards of the time, they weren’t necessarily worse than most other nations in that regard.

          1. I agree. The problem is, many Muslin nations didn’t keep up with the modern world – then 200 years ago the Wahhabi Movement started a fundamentalist revival that moved them backwards.

            1. Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power ??

              Huntington’s 1998 text The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.

  13. Um…okay…Shikhia makes some good points regarding the numbers of peaceful ‘whirling dervish’ Sufis (in addition to the peaceful or at least non-extremist Alawites, Ahmaddyahs, Ismaelis) and conservaderps like Pamella Geller really are hysterical loons. But this is just so much PC crap from Shikhia. ‘Don’t say mean things about a people’s religion or it’ll make them feel bad!’ No, Shikhia, Islam is still a bad thing and it has worse problems in terms of violence and repression than other religions. Stop telling us to pretend.

    1. It’s not hysterical for Pam Geller to be afraid of Muslims. She wouldn’t last a day in a Muslim country.

  14. So if Maher is wrong to point out the various excesses of Muslim extremists, is Reason (and a lot of other people) equally wrong for criticizing Russia’s gay laws? Those were passed at the behest of the Orthodox Church weren’t they?

    1. So if Maher is wrong to point out the various excesses of Muslim extremists

      That’s not what this article was about. Maher is wrong to lump in one-quarter of the world’s population with those extremists.

      1. And no one at Reason has ever done that with Christians?

          1. That is a matter of interpretation. Beyond that, nowhere on earth are Christians doing anything close to what is happening in places like Nigeria. If they were, you don’t think it might give the entire religion a bad name? It has been nearly a thousand years and people still expect Christians to answer for the crusades. Yet, somehow no Muslim is expected to answer for the various outrages happening today.

            1. If they were, you don’t think it might give the entire religion a bad name?

              It might to collectivist dumbasses, like so many on this thread.

              1. I’ll generalize Muslims more than I will Christians, because a Christian extremist might yell at me for being an atheist. A Muslim extremist will saw my head off and tape it to jerk of to later.

                1. off even

            2. Christians are doing some pretty fucked up things in central Africa.

              1. Care to be a little more specific ?

                1. Sure.

                  The specifics of the superstition really don’t matter. Very poor people tend to be superstitious and violent because their lives suck.

                  1. From the article–

                    “The brutalities began to escalate when the country’s first Muslim leader, Michel Djotodia, stepped down and went into exile last month. Djotodia, who had seized power in a coup last March”

                  2. Very poor people tend to be superstitious and violent because their lives suck.

                    Or maybe their lives suck, because they tend to be superstitious and violent?

        1. To be fair, I think the Reason commentariat is a little more intellectually careful than Bill Maher. But, otherwise, I get your point.

          Folks, one of Bill Maher’s schticks for a long while now has been to degrade and belittle religious people. It’s how he and a lot of the people who delude themselves that he’s funny get their jollies by feeling oh-so-intellectually-superior. All he can really be accused of here is being consistent.

          1. Maher is probably the most simple minded public atheist there is. And that is saying something given his competition.

            1. Best example of this, is a comparison of two atheist comedians – Maher and Penn Jillette. Watch any number of clips of Jillette talking about atheism and religion, then try to sit through Maher.

          2. I’m no Maher fan, but I will give him credit where it’s due: much like Hitchens was, he’s an equal-opportunity offender when it comes to religions: he’ll go after all of them equally.

            Dalmia on the other hand is an apologist for one major world religion, and one only. Pretty much all of her writing is one of two categories: half of her articles are about immigration, and the other half are apologias for Islam.

          3. All he can really be accused of here is being consistent.

            That doesn’t play well with the crowd he runs with though, because they generally are not.

      2. That’s not what this article was about. Maher is wrong to lump in one-quarter of the world’s population with those extremists.

        Maher was condemning the religion itself as the main problem. If people stopped believing the religion, that would give them one less justification to be a terrorist, a totalitarian, or a misogynist or whatever.

  15. A distressing number of Muslims the world over will riot over some cartoons published in a newspaper half a world away, it seems, or try to kill writers, movie directors, artists, journalists and pretty much anyone else they might find themselves at odds with.

    But by all means, it’s more important to wring our hands about the theoretical violence people like Bill Maher might engender if he continues to say mean things than by actual violence. Another home run, SD.

    1. Hey, according to the Administration, we lost our Ambassador to Libya over a YouTube movie. Imagine what a Bill Maher joke attempt might cause.

      1. Imagine what a Bill Maher joke attempt might cause.

        Simultaneous projectile vomiting and explosive diarrhea?

        1. Excellent image… there goes dinner, off the schedule.

    2. This. Shikhia is out to avoid discussing the problems of Islam at all cost, hence the digression about India.

    3. Try to kill? Remember Theo van Gogh, Pym Fortuyn, and Lee Rigby to name a few?

      If anyone can refer me to a significant effort among the peaceful Muslims to stop or even condemn this sort of thing I’d appreciate the chance to learn about it.

      1. Daniel Pearl

        1. Just a an addition to your list.

  16. “no more hate crimes in America than in other European countries”

    America is a European country?

    1. Well it is now with the damage Obozo has done. We might be able to fix that.

      1. Can we leave NATO now?

        1. If we are European, we just need to get someone else to pay for it now!

  17. The reason Americans are worried about Islam right now is that a significant faction of Muslims wants to kill Americans. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be worrying about their attitude women and minorities in their own countries.

    So the key distinction is between Muslims who want to kill Americans and those who don’t, and who may potentially fight against the America-killing Muslims for their own reasons. These potential allies probably hold all sorts of “backward” views, and we can alienate them by indiscriminate Muslim-bashing, or we can take our allies where we find them.

    1. Of course, there is quite an overlap between the Muslims who want to kill Americans and the ones who want to commit egregious human-rights violations. But if we want Muslim allies, we can’t just limit ourselves to Sufi meditators and would-be Westerners. Some of the people willing to fight against common Islamist enemies will themselves have versions of Islam which cause Westerners to whip out the smelling salts. But if they’re fighting the people who ought to be be fought, then there’s no call to snipe at them (literally or figuratively).

  18. First, where does this 300 million number come from? I can’t find a reference to anything close to that. That would mean Sufis are about 1/4 of all Muslims. I’m no expert, but I know a bit about the topic, and I suspect that number is way, way too high.

    Second, OK, let’s grant that Sufis aren’t doing any suicide bombing and execution of gays. However, they are an often persecuted minority within Islam. They control no countries and have near-zero political power anywhere. To hold them up as proof that Islam doesn’t have totalitarianism at its core is absurd.

    But this is the sort of PC hand-waving we get from Ms. Dalmia. “Some Muslims aren’t terror supporters and oppressors of women and gays who hate Jews and the West, therefore ignore the scores of millions who are.” “Some illegal immigrants make positive contributions, therefore ignore the millions who don’t.”

    1. I do know that Egypt is full of Sufis and I suspect that they are a key reason the Muslim Brotherhood was turfed and the current military dictatorship is so strong. So that’s political power otherwise I agree with you.

    2. PC dogma seems to consist largely of two competing themes:

      — Ignore obvious trends because they’re not Iron Clad Laws Of The Universe.

      — Take one or two outliers and declare a trend (e.g. Michael Sam).

      1. That’s just a form of confirmation bias, common to all ideologies.

        1. That kind of stuff is religious though. I’ve never heard of anyone who actually believes that stereotypes apply to everyone in a group, or that other groups are immune from that behavior. And yet, how much PC squid ink is there about the dangers of stereotypes? This is more akin to young earth creationists being confronted with dinosaur fossils than, say baseballs managers seeing SABR research on bunting.

    3. 1/4?? In the last estimate I’ve seen there are about 2 billion Muslims in the world. 300 million Sufis seems high, too. I assume this is much much more than merely practicing Sufis. Friends, relatives, and neighbors?

      1. I read that total Muslims are 1.2-1.5 billion, but estimates of Sufis vary wildly: 1%, 3-5%, 30%, a “significant minority.” But I think 300 million is way too high, and I’ve emailed a friend who should know.

          1. Ah, thanks. Offhand I don’t think you can get 300 million from those figures, because the high percentages of Sufis are in the smaller countries.

    4. You ignorant fools!

      Sufis rule this planet.

      I, for one, welcome our new meditative dancing overlords.

  19. This is a stupid piece. Look, around here a great many commenters are of the opinion that basically all cops are bad. You know, the ones that do horrific crimes like beating people to death and the ones that turn a blind eye.

    I have never heard a group of Sufis publicly denounce the violent acts of Islamofascists or making an effort to make them stop.

    1. There is a difference between cops and Sufis.

      Cops have the power to use violence without consequence to uphold their oath to enforce the law, protect and serve, blah blah blah.

      To my knowledge, Sufis do not have such power nor have they sworn such an oath.

      When cops fail to stop bad actors among their ranks, they are derelict in duty.

      Sufis are not duty bound to stop Islamofascists.

      So that’s a crappy comparison on your part.

    2. Islamofascism is a serious issue. Christofascism less so.

      I know that is not a PC thing to say but I don’t care.

      1. Its 8% more serious?

        1. And chock full of conflict minerals!

  20. It sounds like Maher is at least consistent. It seems most Liberals are incapable of avoiding outright hyprocrisy when it comes to Muslims.

    Maher *is* guilty of over-generalization (which we all are to some degree).

    I think one of the main reasons India has a bigger problem with Muslims is that % 20 of the population is Muslim. Assuming the number fo extremists is about the same, this means many more extremists to contend with, which means Muslims in general will get more blowback.

  21. To say the Islamofascist wing represents all Muslims is like saying Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians.

    1. WBC doesn’t murder people?

    2. Not really. Christianity inherently has much more variation in terms of how it treats the Bible. The Bible was written by dozens of people, inspired by God, over hundreds of years, in a half-dozen different languages and cultures. There’s a lot of room for interpretation.

      In contrast, the Koran was (supposedly) written by one person, taking dictation from God. Yes, Allah speaks medieval Arabic, and all Korans are said to be exact copies of the one in Heaven, which is on golden tablets.

      So when Islamofascists claim that the Koran supports their positions, it’s hard to argue with them. True, the Koran is internally contradictory in parts, but all the “kills the Jews and apostates” stuff that makes up Islamofascism (with a few exceptions like burkas) has scriptural support.

      Plus, Christian support for Westboro is infinitesimal, while Muslim support for extremists and terrorists is in high single digits or double digits, nearly everywhere.

      1. You sure you’re not confusing the Koran with the Book of Mormon?

        As far as support for extremists go, I’m not convinced. Sure in some backassward parts of the world they’ve got support, but go to some backassward places in the States and see what people support. That’s more a matter of backasswardness than a specific religion.

        1. Right, I should have said “guarded tablet” or “preserved tablet.”

          Muslim support for terror and extremism is significant and widespread. Westboro doesn’t have anything like 20-30% support among any Christian group.

    3. There are something on the order of 1.2 billion Christians in the world, and the WBC consists of less than 100 family members who, despite being irredeemable cunts, have never, to my knowledge, harmed anyone.

      It should probably go without saying that the proportion of the violent and authoritarian-inclined contingent of Islam is larger both in absolute numbers and as a share of the whole. You might have gotten your first clue when the WBC didn’t, like, control the governments of several major countries.

  22. “”…Maher doesn’t understand that one can’t characterize a whole faith as extremist without also legitimizing the idea that extreme measures are necessary to control it.””

    Shikha Dalmia on Why India Might Elect a Sham Free Marketer Hindu Extremist

    I realize that she made a distinction between characterizing ‘individuals’ versus ‘a whole religion’ as “extremist”

    I still think its worth pointing out that the person she’s labeling an ‘extremist’ was also just elected Prime Minister. And yet she seems to think its still perfectly Ok to consider his supporters ‘a cult following’.

    (a ‘cult’ that wins a majority in a nation of a billion+?)

    The point being = throwing dismissive labels around about groups you don’t like? Join the club.

    I think the more interesting thought here is how often media pundits arbitrarily decide what constitutes the ‘normal’ strain of anything (religion or politics) in order to characterize parts they *don’t like* as “extremist”.

    Note how often politicians of any given stripe refer to any potential opponents (like Rand Paul) as ‘extremist’; its a very-cheap form of devaluation that attempts to bypass any real discussion of *what it is* that a person actually disagrees with them about.

    Libertarians are by definition ‘extremists’ for not being TEAM SOMETHING.

    1. Libertarians are extremists for adhering to principles.

      1. Libertarians are a threat to government.

        “Indeed, the city’s Police Chief justified the necessity for the acquisition of an armored ‘Bearcat’ vehicle by citing the “threat” posed by libertarians, sovereign citizen adherents, and Occupy activists in the region.”

        1. In the video a LE officer even states that as long as they get home safely everyday then it is all worth it.

    2. I’m trying to figure out what significance, if any, to make of Modi’s election. He and others crushed Congress, which is a big deal, but does this really signal a turn towards more market-friendly policies?

      If so, that could have huge implications, of course, but it’s hard to read the tea leaves from here.

    3. I think the more interesting thought here is how often media pundits arbitrarily decide what constitutes the ‘normal’ strain of anything (religion or politics) in order to characterize parts they *don’t like* as “extremist”.

      Like how extremely liberal Muslims are described as “moderate” by pretty much all the media in America.

      1. I think that’s unfair; given there are plenty of ‘conservative’ muslims that are no closer to jihad-supporters than the ‘liberal’ ones.

        The point is more accurate when its pointed out that ‘religious terrorists’ have far more in common with other ‘terrorists’ of opposing theologies than they do with any of their ostensible fellow co-religionists.

        Forget the fact that in the US you could probably be labeled an ‘extremist’ for suggesting you think marriage is something between Men and Women. This is what I mean by the inherent fungibility of the term ‘extremist’

        1. I’m not talking about terrorists.

          For Christianity and Judaism, “liberal” means the most modern or reformed or inline with progressive Western values, and “conservative” means traditional or orthodox or whatever. And moderate means somewhere in-between.

          But it’s not like that with Islam. The people who are the most liberal, reformed, and progressive are called, almost without exception, moderates. For example, in Egypt something like 90% support the death penalty for apostates. But whenever one of the 10% were interviewed by Western media, they were always called the moderates.

          I don’t think the deception is conscious. They’re just mapping their Western values onto people they haven’t bothered to understand.

          1. So really, these moderates are radicals and the real moderates argue about how apostates should be put to death.


    “Islam” in Norway and Denmark predicts:
    – High crime rate.
    – Low intelligence.
    – Low level of education.
    – High use of “social services”.
    – High unemployment.

    (Remove CRs inserted in link to satisfy lousy commenting software)

    1. Lots of “hatefacts” there.

    2. That 2.gen crime rate is terrifying.

      1. Wow. Fuck Somalia.

  24. there would have been far more bloodshed if Bush had followed Maher-style Muslim bashing

    Bullshit. The reason there was so little bloodshed is due to the nature of Americans, not anything Bush said. It’s the same reason we watch sporting events in peace, rather than killing each other in the stands or in the streets outside as in so many other countries.

  25. Regarding the “unfairness” of “labeling a whole faith”: it can be unfair, but not necessarily.

    I’m sure that in Russia in 1917, there were nice Marxists who didn’t want mass murder and GULAGs. So, is it unfair to point out the link between Marxism and mass murder? Of course not, because inherent in the ideology are the things that justify mass murder. The fact that some Marxists aren’t murdering people right now does not make Marxism innocent.

    Similarly, whether any particular Muslim believes this way or not, there is a totalitarianism inherent in Islam. Allah has declared non-Muslims to be second-class citizens (at best) or targets for murder (at worst). There is simply no getting around that, and a lot more unpleasantness. While the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, has some similarly harsh things to say, Christians do not believe that every word of the Bible is the literal word of God in the language God speaks. (Though there may be some ignorant types who think God speaks English.) Muslims must believe that the Koran is the literal word of Allah, or they aren’t Muslims. Sure, they don’t all follow every bit of it every day, but that proves nothing about what can be said to be inherent in the religion itself.

    1. There were even good Nazis. Oskar Schindler, for instance, was a Nazi.

      1. You know who else was a Nazi?

      2. Count D?rckheim comes to mind as well. Plenty of good & intelligent people were taken in by national socialism then; not so different from today.

  26. I seriously don’t think it’s constructive to tell Muslims who don’t want to bomb and kill that they aren’t following the *true* teachings of their religion. For goodness’ sake, that’s what Al Quaeda says! Now they can point to Maher and Ali and similar “non-PC, speak truth to power” types and say: “Look, the infidels themselves admit that if you’re real Muslims, you have to be like us!”

    1. Sometimes the truth is harsh and not “constructive.” Extremism really does logically follow from the Koran. In an important sense, if you believe the Koran, you have to be an “extremist.”

      Christianity is different, for ways I’ve laid out in other comments. One way to look at it: Imagine that Jesus wrote the Bible, single-handed, in something close to Shakespearean English, said that it was all dictated to him by God, and there was little in the New Testament that overruled the harsher parts of the Old. Oh, and by the way, Jesus is the last prophet, and nobody who comes later can change anything he said. To be a Christian, you’d have to believe that, and you’d be “extremist” by any reasonable definition.

  27. my friend’s mother makes $61 every hour on the internet . She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her income was $17227 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit site………..

    1. She collects *jizya* from rich infidels over the Internet?

  28. Bill Mayer bashes religion period. He does not really care which.

    1. This really can’t be repeated often enough.

      And for some odd reason, dipshit Dalmia doesn’t get her panties all twisted up in a bunch when he bashes any of the other religions.

  29. I’m actually kind of surprised that dickless wonder had the balls to go after Islam at all.

  30. Christians are funnier to mock. But I’m with Maher on denouncing “religious moderates” as enablers of the crazies. So they’re saying their deity is real and will reward or punish you according to your faithfulness, but just be a little less extreme about your devotion, ok? Doesn’t make sense.

    1. Tony|5.19.14 @ 4:42PM|#

      Christians are funnier to mock.”

      You think they are funnier to mock because Christians don’t cut your fucking head off you slimy piece of shit.

      You should be honest and say that you think it’s funny to mock Christians because you are a chicken shit coward.

      1. So you do Muslims in your stand-up routine? Or are you just whining about Christians being mocked?

        Since you’re the expert, tell me a funny joke about Muslims. If I laugh, then I’m still right but congratulations for the achievement.

  31. fuck Islam. No idea is deserving of unquestioning respect. Much less a supernatural claim. And Certainly not this barbaric goat herd poetry. This sort of belief system can only be defended by sociopaths and the irrational.

  32. “There is a clear recognition this time that America cannot throw its core constitutional protections under the bus to pursue terrorists.”

    Say what? “Clear recognition” by whom?

    Also, how do we know that “extreme” Islam isn’t the One True Way, and Sufism isn’t just a hippie perversion of the Quran?

  33. Another BS article by Shikha. She’s batting a thousand these days.

    What’s lacking in the article are those quaint little things known as facts.

    She protests the inaccuracy of a generalization. Well, show that it’s inaccurate. And “my friend is Muslim, and he’s not an extremist” does not show that a *generalization* is inaccurate.

    Go over and read Pew Polls of religious and political views in predominantly Muslim countries.

    Widespread support for stoning of adulterers. 80% in Egypt (90mil pop) and Pakistan (180mil pop). Is that what Shikha calls moderate?…..-overview/

    Widespread support for making Sharia the official law of the land. Over 50% in the majority of countries.…..dulterers/

    So, Reason is now cool with theocratic totalitarianism. Marvelous. First Sheldon giving blow jobs to the Mullahs in Iran, now Shikha condemning criticism of the theocratic totalitarianism across the Muslim world.

    What the hell is going on with Reason these days? YAY, theocratic totalitarianism! Is that how they’re pushing open borders these days, trying to convince us that opening the borders and voting booths to every illiterate theocratic totalitarian in the world won’t be so bad, because they’re really not so “extreme” after all?

    1. And by the way — boo hoo hoo, an atheist said mean things about Muslims. What do Muslims say about atheists, hmmm? What does the Holy Koran have to say about atheists? All sorts of warm and fuzzy things, right?

      1. You just lookin’ to get your body drug through the streets, aren’t you?

        1. sans some body parts

  34. Read the Koran. That’s all I can say.

    Christianity has frequently been co-opted. From the Roman Empire to crooked evangelists, it’s twisted and used for things it was never meant for. But read the New Testament. It’s a religion based on peace and charity and not telling others how to live. Judge not lest ye be judged. Yeah, that often gets overlooked by people who are trying to convince other people to do things, but it’s a central message.

    Islam on the other hand was essentially a militant religion. Muhammed was a conqueror. His uncle was a much better warlord, and Islam steamroller the world at the point of the sword. It hasn’t stopped since.

    Are there muslims who view the warlike nature more as a metaphor? Sure, but they’re in the extreme minority and completely overlooking what Mohammed actually did.

  35. Hey, where did the Jew baiting picture of the Monstrous Maher Nose go?

    Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.

    If Reason is going to get all kissy face with theocratic totalitarians, may as well fire up the Memory Hole too!

  36. Islam teaches that Muhammad will return when muslims control the world. Different Muslim sects disagree on how to take over countries, through violence or immigration or outreach, but they all agree on the objective and the agenda IS to conquer America and put it under Sharia law so that Muhammad will come back. Are there “Muslims” that do not push for conquest? Sure, and there are “Christians” that do not love their neighbor – but, both are not actually practicing their religion.
    Another dangerous aspect of Islam is the requirement of deeds to enter heaven – your good must outweigh your bad. Lets face it, that is hard to accomplish and be sure of, which is why so many muslims are willing to die through jihad because it is the only way to guarantee their salvation. In contrast, Christians can do nothing to be saved – deeds offer nothing.
    Unlike Buddhists, whose religion always teaches peace, I see Islam as a genuine threat to freedom for the two reasons I just listed and many more. Keep in mind that most of the armed conflicts in the world today involve Islam (always have since it began), and Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world. Just look in parts of Europe where Islam has begun to take a majority for a glimpse of what is coming here.
    I am ALL about freedom of religion, but that doesn’t mean that all religions accept that freedom. I am all about separation of religion from government, but Islam DEMANDS that there be no separation.

  37. yes only 5-10% of the Islamic world population is dangerously radical so we only have to worry about 100 to 200 million of them that want to slit our throats because we drink beer, eat bacon, and watch I Dream of Jeanie re-runs.

    1. Again, I’d recommend getting the actual facts from Pew Research.

      It’s much worse than that.

      80% of Pakistan believes in death for adultery and apostasy. That’s just for starters.

  38. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $500 a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.


  40. Between this and the War on Wimmynz NYT article, I’m beginning to think Shikha accidentally took a wrong turn on the way to her Slate cubicle, and somehow ended up writing for us here.

  41. \&\#67;?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.