On Maher, Harris, Affleck, & The Islam Debate On Real Time

October 5, 2014

For those who saw Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Bill Affleck debate Islam on Real Time, I’d like to make a few remarks about the segment.

First, I think it’s important to remember that Bill Maher and Sam Harris are making their arguments in good faith. I don’t think their suspicion of Islam is the product of simple-minded bigotry, but rather, flows from a deep concern with very real human rights violations that are common in some majority-Muslim countries. Affleck was clearly outgunned, because he doesn’t have the academic training necessary to be a good advocate for his position. Harris and Maher are both seasoned debaters, and Affleck’s green'ness showed.

Second, as a card-carrying skeptic, I’m sympathetic to Maher & Harris’s inherent suspicion of organized religion. It’s easy to just paint Maher and Harris as bigots and ignore them. But that would be irresponsible. As Maher said on his program, he isn’t making up the fact that there’s evidence of large numbers of Muslims holding beliefs that most Americans would find objectionable. And he’s certainly not wrong that there are Muslim-majority countries where women and homosexuals are treated terribly. The problem is that Maher & Harris’s position is somewhat unsophisticated, because it doesn’t describe the culture of every majority-Muslim country. I also think Maher too readily accepts the face value of polls. At one point Maher cites a poll from Egypt to support his argument that a majority of the Muslims there have troubling beliefs. But it’s hard for me to take the results of that poll seriously when we saw images of Egyptian Christians and Muslims protecting each other as they prayed during the 2011 protests. Do these charitable acts represent the majority of the Muslim community? Perhaps not. But it does indicate that the Muslim community in Egypt is not as monolithic as the poll suggests. Maher is smart enough to know this, but he consistently papers over this fact in his polemics against Islam.

Third, I think one of the issues with Maher & Harris’s position is their failure to distinguish between doctrine and belief. Harris often argues that almost all major religious texts, interpreted literally, lead to horrible results. I would grant Maher & Harris that, interpreted literally, the Qur'an can be used to justify all manner of cruelty and oppression. But it seems quite clear to me that—just like every other religion on earth—many Muslims do not interpret the Qur'an literally. Whether they are correct to do so is besides the point, because this conversation is about what Muslims actually believe, not what they would believe if they interpreted the Qur'an literally. Which brings me to my next point.

Fourth, I disagree with Maher & Harris is that the majority of Muslims worldwide actually hold the views Maher & Harris cite as problematic—or if they do hold those beliefs, then I disagree that they would actually ever act on them. The poll data Maher & Harris are relying on conflicts with the testimony and images I have seen in countless news articles from the Muslim world, and with the experiences I’ve had with Muslim people myself. I understand that anecdotal evidence isn’t worth a whole lot when you’re talking about a global population of 1.1 billion Muslims. I also understand that Muslims who live in America are probably a lot more liberal than their peers in other, more conservative Muslim countries. But if that’s the case, then what we’re talking about here is not so much an Islam problem, but a culture problem. Specifically, a culture problem in countries where strict interpretations of Islam are common (according to the polls Maher & Harris are relying on, anyway).

Lastly, I think this “culture v. religion” distinction is one that Maher and Harris consistently miss, despite correctly pointing out very real and problematic beliefs that exist in certain conservative Muslim countries. At the very least, the fact that the most common victims of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims ought to be an indication that Maher & Harris are oversimplifying the issue. Perhaps Maher & Harris oversimplify because they are anxious to avoid the paralysis of analysis. Given what Maher & Harris believe is at stake (“they’ll fucking kill you!”), it’s understandable. But in this case, I think oversimplification has the potential to do nearly as much harm as it prevents—such as confirming the “West is at war with Islam” meme that fundamentalists are so fond of, or radicalizing and alienating moderate Muslims who might help liberalize the culture of the more conservative majority-Muslim countries that Maher & Harris criticize.

12:36am | URL: https://tmblr.co/ZMMjnx1SOeA9h

(Notes: 43)