Maher vs. Mohammed

I was taken aback by Maher's comment. Was a man who I normally admire for poking fun at all the lunacy in politics really contributing to it?

I guess Jon Stewart is right that some figures are out there simply to gin up each side for their own look-at-me motives. Except this time, Maher proved to be pandering to the wrong side. Or was he?

As Ralph Nader once replied when asked if he ever thought there would be a viable third party, "I'd settle for a second."

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." -- Daniel Dennett

I'm more appalled that the people around him didn't just call him out on his idiocy. Conservative or liberal, that kind of ignorance and illogic is unacceptable; what's worse is that the audience applauded, possibly reinforcing Maher's inside voice to go "nailed it!"

"Perhaps, in his head, that's what he thought he was doing, but that's not what he said. In fact, it contradicts what he said, which was that he objected to the popularity of the name "Mohammed" on religious grounds, not political ones. So how does he get, in one step, from the popularity of a Muslim name in England (one that's also extremely common worldwide) to the end of Western civilization at the hands of Islam in 300 years? Sounds like demagoguery and bigotry to me."

I must say - you nailed it right there with this statement.

Mohammed is traditionally the name given to the first-born son in a Muslim family, though it's not invariable. Given that a lot of countries with Muslim cultures tend to have a lot of children, other sons will have other names, but any family is likely to have a Mohammed in it.

There's no comparable name given to the eldest son in English-speaking countries, but if there were (e.g. Joseph), I'm sure it would be far and away the most common name given to babies in the UK.

Bill Maher is a racist,so those words are not surprising.
Many times,on his show ,he has praised Israel for acts even the UN has said are crimes.EG-the murders of 3000 residents of Gaza in '08.
Plus that of a 19 year old American,among others,on the Gaza flotilla.

Alfie is number 3.

Not Alfred. Alfie.

I think that's disturbing.

Bill Maher just exposed himself big time. It's very clear that he has had an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stance for years. In early 2009, he had the singer M.I.A. (of Tamil descent) as a guest and patted himself on the back for bringing light to the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils. Of course, by this time the war was pretty much over, but what bothered me was that I had...no I knew that Bill Maher was not educated in this subject. How could a man that has had such pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian be supporting the Sri Lankan Tamils. Yes there are differences, but the one major similarity between the two groups is that despite the humanitarian crises that Tamils and Palestinians face, they are ultimately supported by and support terrorist organizations: Hamas (which Maher has brought up countless times to support his views) and the LTTE (which Maher pointed out in passing). Plus, for no apparent reason decides to bring up religion, which she does say in response that the conflict is not religious.

Bill Maher is a rabble rouser and a racist (exclusively dating black women doesn't absolve someone of being one). Thank you Jim for bringing this up and you are absolutely correct that this story would have much more traction if it was brought up by a Glenn Beck or someone else from the Right.

Isn't this just his dumb way of saying that he's worried about Islamic values creeping into Western culture? Don't get me wrong here, I think his equation is silly at best, and I personally have no fears about kids being named Mohammad in England. However, I think Maher is trying to say, "This spike in Mohammed names is evidence that there are more and more Muslims making thier homes in historically Judeo-Christian cultures. This worries me, because it means that the threat of Islamic terrorism could be getting geographically closer to us, and therefore more likely."

Is it racist to think that? It might be, but it doesn't have to be. Islam and terrorism haven't exactly been strangers in recent years. I would sooner think that Maher is merely being in inarticulate when he expresses himself this way, and bombastic when he decides that he will neither apologize or clarify himself.

As an aside, I should say that I don't have cable, and I'm not very familiar with Maher's show. There may be elements of his personality or history that could contextualize these comments better for me.

Wow. You didn't blow this out of proportion at all. You are so right. And you do it all somehow without placing yourself above Bill Maher because of course, you're not sanctimonious. You never once indicate that you are morally superior to Bill Maher because you have logic on your side. And of course, logic never fails. I should know, I'm a 20-year old college kid with asperger's syndrome- so logically I've already accepted that social interaction is/will be an everyday struggle for me and emotionally distant logic is the only reliable source of solace.

Emotions confuse me. I identify with Modest Mouse's Isaac Brock when he sings, "I'm the same as I was when I was six years old, and oh my god i feel so damn old, I don't really feel anything." I barely feel anything at all on a good day. I just pretend to improve socially though logically I know that I never can. I do it based on what I see because I've noticed I still live among people who think I can change. Its not an unfortunate fact. Its just a fact. There are no emotions attached to it. I fake emotions and people believe me. No comment on whether thats morally right or not. It just is. At least my faking emotions is not emotionally motivated. That would be… confusing.

I've accepted Arrested Development because I only understand intellectual and abstract concepts. Thats what excites me. Emotions just confuse me. Logic makes sense. Its kept me from holding onto a girlfriend... but even that makes sense to me. My syndrome gives me focus. I can shoot up the ladder in my life without ever emotionally progressing. Emotions seem like a detriment anyway. They seem to motivate people like Bill Maher to do illogical things.

So naturally, I've concluded that logic is great. Its never once steered me wrong, not like Bill Maher. Its helped me eliminate the friends who haven't been useful to me. I guess I'm like Ryan Bingham in that sense, minus all the mumbo-jumbo about him feeling sorry for himself. That's too sentimental and it involves feelings I can't grasp. It doesnt make sense for a successful guy like him to be unhappy about something as trivial as not settling down.

He should know better: he would grow restless with any sort of mate if he were with them for too long. He seemed more real to me in the beginning of the movie. More logical. I guess I'm assuming that he would think like me but I think thats fair because the movie portrays him to be a cheery pathological loner (like me) for the first 3/4 of the film before suddenly completely re-writing him as a sad sack. That rings false to me. Logic doesn't allow that.

Yep, logic seems to be the key to a happy life. Being clever really is all that great! I can reason my way through anything- even my fetishes! I'm glad you're such a logical guy too, Jim. Maybe we're the next link in the evolutionary chain, eh? Well, I can't logically conclude that. Now I'm starting to sound sanctimonious like Bill Maher! Forgive me Jim, I know you would never place yourself above the actions of another person- not even a dumb comedian like Bill Maher.

"And they're all pretty decent guys."

Hahahaha! That is hilarious in so many wrong ways.

And Maher is not funny even when he has a joke.

While from Maher's comments on this show I conclude that he is anti-Islam and bigoted, I do NOT conclude he is racist because he supports Israel.

You can support Israel and not be anti-Islam (or anti-Palestinians). Supporting Israel in and of itself does not make you racist.

OTOH, attacking Israel at every opportunity may well make you anti-Semetic (or, to be absolutely clear, anti-Jewish). (And I do not defend all of Israel's actions, either, but I take criticism of their actions with many grains of salt and consider the source.)

If you want to watch something that is proudly "P.C." in its defense of the equality of religions, watch Law and Order. There are a good number of episodes exploring the prejudice many Muslims face.

Also, this is for Bill Maher

Narrator: "Where will he go next, this phantom from another time, this resurrected ghost of a previous nightmare--Chicago; Los Angeles; Miami, Florida; Vincennes, Indiana; Syracuse, New York? Anyplace, everyplace, where there's hate, where there's prejudice, where there's bigotry. He's alive. He's alive so long as these evils exist. Remember that when he comes to your town. Remember it when you hear his voice speaking out through others. Remember it when you hear a name called, a minority attacked, any blind, unreasoning assault on a people or any human being. He's alive because through these things we keep him alive."

Anyone who thinks Muslims are subverting democracy, homosexual marriage is aberrant, carefully read the above paragraph. It should be engraved on the front of the Holocaust Museum.

Maher talks about it like it's a problem that should be solved. What does he want or expect anyone to actually do about the number of Mohammeds in England? Put them in camps? Outlaw Islam? What? Are these kind of "extreme" statements even meant for anyone who doesn't already agree with them? No. Maher is just telling those who feel exactly the same way as he does exactly what they want to hear, and that's all.

There's a new form of segregation, and it's media segregation. They've sidestepped the back of the bus problem by having different buses for all the different groups, so everyone can feel safe and secure amongst the people who look like them...this time, on the inside.

"Do you have anything to say about the number of babies named Mohammed who were born in England and Wales last year? How does that make you feel?"

+++++

As an ex-Muslim living in Britain it makes me feel that we have to refuse to be inhibted from discussing the issues that arise from reactionary Islamic attitudes, cultures and traditions in a modern secular society like the UK. Because these issues are not going to fade away. Muslims will comprise more and more of the British population in the future, and so it is vital that issues like sharia, religious extremism, persecution of Muslim apostates, jihadism, freedom of speech, and female oppression are clearly criticised and confronted, and that non Muslims do not feel inhibited from doing so where it is nessecary to integrate Muslims into British society.

If people on the Left would do more to support ex Muslims, and women like Maryam Namazie, a founder member of the Council of ex Muslims of Great Britain, and a leader of the One Law For All campaign, which actively campaigns against the entrenchment of sharia law in British cities with large Muslim populations, and the horror that sharia attitudes and arbitrations wreck upon women, children, gays and Muslim dissenters, not to mention the wedge it drives between Muslims and non Muslims, leading to further separatism, ghettoisation, and extremism, if the Left supported these concerns rather than knee-jerkingly deriding us, or people who have concerns on this issue, then the Right wouldn't be able to twist things in the way they do.

Time for the Left to take ownership of these issues. Denial is not an option.

"If Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell had said that -- and it's at least as stupid as anything any of them have ever said -- they would have been (ahem) crucified in the press. But there's been scarcely a peep about Maher's leaping illogic."

Easy explanation: no one gives a crap about Bill Maher. He doesn't have the fervent following of a Glenn Beck. Just ignore the jerk and he'll go away.

Henry, what exactly did Bill expose himeslf to be? A racist? A bigot? First off let's take being a racist right off the table. IT IS NOT RACISM TO FEAR A RELIGION!! The left always likes to play the race card when Muslims are brought about in a negative way, usually by uber-conservatives. Much like being Jewish or Christian, Muslims have the opportunity to turn their back on their faith/religion. Being of a certain race means you are born a certain way and will live that way for the rest of your life; calling him a racist for not liking the rapidly spreading Islam is him merely not liking a specific religion. Blacks, whites, Asians....these people cannot renounce their color or physical features. Muslims, just like any religion on the planet (totally disregarding any ideology that states once you convert, it's for life here...I mean if you want out of a religion, just stop calling yourself a member) have the ability to simply stop practicing. That negates any racist dialogue we should be having here with Bill. Juan Williams was fired for saying something I would be willing to bet a majoirty of people feel. For those altruistic people out there who feel they are above any biases.... go sit on a plane and look accross the aisle and see 2-3 muslim men in full muslim garb. You tell me for 1 second that terrorism doens't cross your mind in some form. Let me guess I'm going to get a follow up poster of someone saying they were just on a plane and saw a similar situation and they didn't even double take to look back at them, I call your bluff. Is it in some ways bigoted to live our lives this way, sure. Is it realistic and possibly a necessary way to go about our business in this new violent world? Absolutely. In the end Bill Maher seems to be making more of a critique on the way the Williams comments and fallout were handled. Freedom of speech allows people to speak their minds, even if sometimes it goes against the almighty politically correct. Had Williams said something along the lines of inciting violence in some way I would agree the man should lose his credibility and job. Also to say we should compare the quantity of names of Judeo Christian and Muslim heritages is absurd. A spike in Muslim names does not scare me as much as it alarms me. The fastest growing religion, Islam, which also, the world over produces the greatest amount of faith based violence spreading into non-traditional areas of the world is a cause for concern. By the way Henry, when I see someone segue from Maher and Williams into the Israeli Palestinian conflict I begin to question credibility as this always seems to be the launching pad for extreme pro-Jewish or pro-Muslim ideologies. Just a thought man, don't be so quick to slander people for speaking their mind when it comes to hot button topics, especially when it's merely dialgoue and not some tirade (a la Mr. Beck) inciting people to take up arms to protect themselves from the "Evil Muslims/Socialists/fear of the day."

@Q Le. The audience has most likely been fed or paid so they clap when they're told to.

Also to explain why I found the previous quote I laughed at...its such a weak sauce way to argue the point against Maher. I guess how do you argue against drivel. I've found that's how Maher argues. He'll make such a blatantly idiotic statement so it can't be argued against making himself appear superior. Notice how in the end he manages to say he was right. Well, if you make such a liquid argument, you're bound to find a moment in which you are able to say you're right.

Does he know how many Mexicans are named Jesus? And if you claim to be an atheist, is a country ruled by religion, does it matter what religion? Just the idea that in our country, a melting pot of ideas, that one religion could wipe out the rest is absurd. Its more likely that Muslim idea will be integrated into the society on an equal or lesser level.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

To explain my Mexican/Jesus comment. Using Maher's logic, the Mexican culture is largely Catholic, or that is the assumption made by popular culture, etc. This largely Catholic culture has had a huge sway on voting in CA, ie gay marriage. Wouldn't he be just as worried about the name Jesus then?

However, if you take a wrong turn in corn country and find yourself in a secluded town where all the barefooted, dirty-faced boys are named Ezekiel, feel free to find yourself alarmed.

Hi Jim,

Good stuff, as always.

A bit of side info. I hope I don't get too technical, especially in the second point:

1- It is common Muslim tradition for parents to name (in some cases) *all* their boys and girls after the Prophet Muhammad -p. Part of the goal is the connection with the Prophet. Part of the goal is the meaning (i.e. giving your child a name with a nice meaning). "Muhammad" means "the one on whom is praise and gratitude." This tradition includes variations on the name, of which many are surely familiar:

a- Hamid (male) / Hamida (female) [Pronounced HAA-mid).
b- Hameed / Hameeda (pronounced ha-MEED).
c- Mahmood / Mahmooda
d- Hammad
e- Ahmad (aka Ahmed)
d- Mehmet (Turkish, Eastern European variant of Muhammad)
e- Ahmet (Turkish again)
f- Mahomet (Latinized)

So, if we looked at British baby names for Muhammad *and* if our search included the variations, Bill Maher would probably have a seizure. (And yes, Maher itself is not uncommon as a Muslim name. "Mahir" means "skilled," while "Mahr" means "marriage gift").

2- One of the biggest problems with the Sharia discussion [aside from Maher's leap in logic] is that we Muslims have used the term "law" to describe it (in the same problematic way that "jihad" is used to specifically describe "fighting"). The problem here is three-fold.

a- Sharia itself is not quite law. Rather, if you picture a spectrum that has law at one end and ethics at the other, you will find Sharia to be in the middle. The functional goal of the Sharia is, like ethics, perfection of character. Like law, the goal is preservation of certain elements of society (most commonly, life, lineage, intellect, wealth, religion, and dignity).

Here is an excellent introduction to the Sharia. It is a modified translation of a standard primer taught in madrassas. It is modified for an American Muslim context. You'll note is that you will not find "rules," as opposed to maxims. Sharia emphasizes the process. http://bit.ly/bFSxgH

a- Supporting this point, we have seen many enduring states and empires self-identify (accurately or inaccurately) as "Islamic" yet we rarely find Sharia being enforced as the law of the land. Simply: Sharia does not function as codified law. The Ottomans, for example, have in their 600 year history almost always identified themselves as a specifically Islamic empire, yet it wasn't until their final century that they attempted to codify Sharia into law (in a document called the Mecelle/Mejelle). Otherwise, most of the Muslim nations had their own civil code that was (at best) partially informed by Sharia. Likewise, most of today's so-called Islamic states enforce a mixture of Sharia and (usually) English Common Law or Napoleonic Code. This includes Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, The Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia. I've left out the Taliban because they were never recognized as a state. Iran is an anomaly, both in terms of today's world, and in terms of history. This has to do with an innovation in tradition by Khomeini called "vilayet-e fakih" (Rule by Jurists), making the legal scholars the jurists. That is an anomaly in Islamic history and thought.

c- The other problem is that coercive civil law itself is a recent phenomenon in human history, traceable to the rise of nation-states, and the subsequent emphasis on both individual control and individual autonomy. The history of empires does not show as much coercive state law. It is there, but not nearly as much as we have in, say, a given city in the United States. Often the main concern was that people paid their taxes. Muslim empires (as mentioned above) often had civil code informed by, but not limited to Sharia, because much of Sharia was not applicable, and more importantly, Sharia itself is process, not code. I'm saying that even when we speak of civil code, law itself went through a massive transformation in the modern era, connected with the rise of nation-states and bureaucratic governments, and subsequently compelling concerns for human rights. The point here again being that according to Sharia: Sharia is at the service of people, people are not at the service of Sharia. That stands in stark contrast to contemporary coercive law, where the law is supposed to be at the service of the people, but the people -- for the theoretical sake of social order -- are at the service of the law.

But, we know that point #2 above is immaterial to the greater discussion. It is much easier to blame the problems of our world on bogeymen and scapegoats, and not on ourselves. And, folks like Maher, Juan Williams, Fox News, Disaster-Capitalists (like Halliburton), Oil contractors, Weapons contractors, and, yes, al-Qaida, cash in on it. The main reason I didn't raise a stink was because I need a breather. Was worn out from Juan Williams. ;)

I hope all is well.

Omer M

For a guy who hates religion especially Islam his prime example is the names of babies in Britain as the over arching fear of Islamic domination in the western world. Maher just embarrasses himself even more than usual with focusing on petty issues to support larger claims.

As long as books being written and cartoons being drawn result in far reaching calls for death threats we all DO have something to worry about. Until Islam goes thru the same reformation that softened and de-clawed the catholic church we have something to worry about.

I would read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books Infidel and Nomad. Very good insights into what a reformed Muslim thinks of her religion. She is in hiding with full time body guards by the way...

As Sam Harris said:
"But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right."

And

"We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

I wonder how folks in Saudi Arabia would feel if their #1 baby name was Nigel?

We must realize some of the barbaric activies being undertaken have a good amount of basis in the particlular culture withouth being related to religion.

Also, as a member of the Left, I admit we should decry sexism practiced in the name of Islam. We should also do it when practiced uder the name of Christianity and Judaism.

Hopefully everyone will see the figure of Sir Lucas facing them, from the novel Ivanhoe. He knows only the religion of prejudice and his god only exists to persecute others. When we go after a religion with too much vehemence, unless it is based totally in evil, such as the Westboro Church, we implictly endorse Sir Lucas's campaign, and lose our humanity on the way.

If you think I'm overreacting, my mother wasn't allowed to say the Kaddish audibly for her mother because of her sex.

Judaism still has a while to go.

Shalom.

I'm a little baffled by your first argument, Jim. You admit that variations on "Mohammed" make it the most popular boys' name in the UK, but insist that because some folks spell it differently, it shouldn't count toward Bill's point?

Jim, your second counter-point is a bit ridiculous as well. Sure, in the west we don't fret about kids with Judeo-Christian names, because we've already hashed it out with the Jewish and Christian religions. We've broken those horses in and now they adhere to western cultural values.

Sure, we are continually forced to keep the western religions in check, but that does not make Christian and Jewish extremism equivalent to Islamic extremism. They aren't just different, one is actually measurably worse than the other.

Your comparison to Beck is fair. This is a slippery slope argument for which Maher does not present sufficient evidence. It doesn't make him wrong, but it does make his argument appear to be filled with holes and laughable at a glance.

However, the steps to which you believe Maher should have illustrated are pretty clear to me.

The steps and circumstances required for religion of any stripe to spoil civilization simply by making babies:

- Intelligent people are less likely to believe in god.

- Intelligent people have less children.

- the idea that smarter people will be outbred by less intelligent people should be worrying in its own right, but take into consideration the role that organized religion plays in this scenario. The Catholic Church and Islam both forbid birth control, this isn't done simply because they believe life is a miracle, it is done to boost the religion's numbers.

Stupid people are far more likely to believe in the religious gibberish than intelligent people, and stupid people make stupid babies.

If they can't dominate a civilization through violent aggression, then they will simply out fuck the atheists until the infidels are in such a minority that precious and fragile things like freedom of religion will be nothing but dust.

And Freedom of Religion is far more important than any one religion.

Read 'Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?' by academic Eric Kauffman. In a few hundred pages, using demography and fertility rates, he will tell you exactly how you can, "get from popular baby names in 2009 to the overthrow of Western civilisation by Islam".

But he doesn't think it will take 300 years.

Also, I'm a secular Muslim and it scares ME that Mohammed is the most popular boy's name in the UK. Regardless of how often it is chosen amongst Muslims, the truth is they are outbreeding you plain and simple. And unfortunately, the ones having the most kids are the fundies.

And no, I don't think Maher was been racist. As a left-leaning Muslim from an Arab background, I am growing increasingly disillusioned with the Western Left for exactly the same reasons as Sam Harris. The progressive Muslim voice is been obliterated by extremists and you guys are defending the extremists. Case in point: if I hear one more western feminist compare the burqa to high heels, I swear I will staple one to her head. Never mind all the Muslim women who feel coerced, pressured and manipulated into wearing one. Much more important to defend the men's right to subordinate their women.

What Bill is saying, and I don't see how he's jumping any steps here, is this: There are an increasing number of muslims in the UK. More now than ever before. At this rate of birth/immigration, sharia law will take over, due to the power of numbers that muslims will have in that country. This trend of increased of muslim presence, will likely spread to the rest of the western world. If there are more votes for a law, like allowing men to beat there wives, than there are votes against that law, the law will pass. More Mohammeds means more Muslims means more evil sharia law. Am I racist too?

Maher's fear is expressed in a rather foolish way, and on foolish grounds. However, I think many people sympathize with it, and for better reasons than the ones Maher expressed.

Anyone who lives near a Muslim community will notice that its residents tend to self-segregate. They prefer separate schools, a fairly homogeneous community to themselves, their own system of internal law, etc. As a result, they do not integrate well into the larger society around them, and thus seem like perpetual strangers.

This is not, of course, true for all individual Muslims, many of whom cheerfully integrate into western society. But the existence of these virtually walled-off Muslim communities makes people very nervous, and not without justification. Christians who isolate themselves are similarly disturbing, such as the radical Mormon cult compounds in Utah or the crazies at the Westboro Baptist Church).

Does this mean Islam will overwhelm western society in 300 years? I think western society stands a better chance of moderating Islam in that time, just as it moderated its own Christian religion over the last 300 years (with certain notable exceptions as mentioned earlier). That is precisely why some Muslims form these self-segregated communities: to combat that mechanism.

Hi Jim, thanks for taking a stand on this issue. Bill Maher-types in the Muslim world are also claiming that in 300 years the Middle East will be taken over by atheism. Hysteria and fear-mongering are the new black, it seems.

He may not have said it as eloquently as he'd hoped but I agree with him. Anytime I hear about any religion propagating at a fast rate worries me.

Kevy- I have no sense of humor. That's why Maher appeals to me.

John F. is right. Parceling out spellings for "Mohammed" does not discredit the possibility that the name has become the most popular as much as it illustrates one outcome of anglicization. Foreign names, variously translated using the Latin alphabet, are not easily plugged into a census report, highlighting the futility of such bean-counting activities in the age of globalization. This is coming from someone whose name is daily butchered in speech and print because it is "foreign" sounding and has so many possible spellings. Furthermore, your response to John F., "even when you add up all the spellings, it only outranks Oliver by a couple hundred babies," is rather sweetly off-kilter. A "couple hundred babies" must surely count for something...to someone! And if we are being rational, then we should acknowledge that one baby, let alone a "couple hundred" proves the point that one name is more popular than another.

Respectfully, I find that picking apart this statistic is a weak argument on your part, and indicative of a deeper problem underpinning your essay. You discredit Maher's use of facts, suggesting that he is being willfully dishonest. OK, you believe this (though I would counter that all statistics, as this case indicates, are inherently malleable and not necessarily evidence of deliberate dishonesty). This is one example of how your relatively reasoned arguments are so colored by vitriol that they are stretched and tainted. I understand that you were deeply angered by his statements. But the odd mix of (enumerated!) rational arguments and polemical ire is beneath you. Before I am accused of being unfair, I would ask that you consider your opening statement: "Let's try to get past Maher's characteristically sanctimonious delivery and bullshitter's disregard for reason and factuality." No, let's not slip past this ad hominem attack without acknowledging that it sets the tone for your entire essay. This rhetorical strategy is tempting because it is so easy and so damn effective. All too often it is used by smart people who can do better.

I am not suggesting that Maher has not resorted to polemical name-calling in his show. And he often forcefully criticizes Islam. But he is being true to his atheism, or really, antitheism (he is much influenced by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens) and does not single out Islam in his shows or in his documentary "Religulous". I respect the fact that you find his statements on Real Time to be a form of irrational televised hate speech, though I myself disagree. But in your written response, composed at your leisure and I believe with much reflection, you should have checked your anger and used different tactics than the same ones that you perceive and decry in others. In your follow-up question to your opening sentence you ask, "Should I apologize for asking: What is he talking about?" No, you should not. But you might have thought better of how to craft your response so as to do your cause justice.

I winced at this blog entry, because I am a fan of yours (your insights on "Mad Men" have left me breathless). But I also greatly admire Maher for what I perceive to be his honesty and courage. Unlike some the commenters to your blog, I think he is a gifted and intellectually agile comic, and I often agree with his assessments of religion even when I know that they are said in a way that is meant to push buttons. These are admittedly not well rehearsed in the segment that sparked your essay, and awkwardly parrot of arguments better fleshed out elsewhere.

I see merit to both sides of this larger issue, and neither side has been well served in this case.

Perhaps Jim's reaction is rooted in the idea that there are people who watch Bill Maher as a legitimate source of real-world and philsophical debate. If you strip away the newsroom set, all you really have left is a provocative comedian and a bunch of guest speakers, some of whom seem to think they were invited for a real discussion. The same can be said of Jon Stewart but at least he seems to understand that his primary role is being a comedian (also, his guests seem to understand what his show is supposed to be).

Don't get me totally wrong - I think Maher can be funny when he deals with conventional comedy and it is entertaining to hear him express his angst-ridden views on religion, etc. BUT... no one really ought to be taking him seriously. At least in any capacity that extends beyond telling jokes. At best, anything he says should be taken as satire.

Maher is stating that UK has too many Muslims, that they are encroaching into Western society. He voiced a concern that most people have - the Muslim way is incompatible with the Western lifestyle.

Countries under Islam offer less liberties, punish with impunity, and devalue women. I certainly don't want any advances of Islam here. I would prefer Christianity disappear too.

Maher said, specifically, that he did not want Islam to basically dominate the world in 300 years.

He is not anti-Islamic, he is anti-religious.

We in the US are accustomed to a balance of terror between our religious groups. We have rarely experienced one group dominating us - Utah and small towns excepted.

Islam rejects birth control. Therefore they quickly overwhelm any culture they settle among, and they will bring their extremism with them. Religion does notlong tolerate threats, and a secular society is number one on the enemies list.

And I do demand te right to call religionists on their madness.

My comments didn't get published so I'll say it in more vague terms.

The only thing that Bill Maher wanted people to kind of investigate or was just putting out there was the possibility that a terrorist ideology might be taking over the western world: and in this, he is correct with his hunch, hunches being something he has said on his show that Democrats are right about (Bush lying) and Republicans are often wrong about (Obama taking away everyone's guns).

Just to point out another falsity that people keep saying is, like Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher, that Muslims attacked us on 9/11, when those people weren't anymore Muslims than the people out there holding the "God Hates Fags" signs are Christians.

Another thing I wanted to point out about what Juan Williams that I think was wrong. He never said that it was the Muslim garb that made him scared, he said he didn't get scared until they identified themselves as Muslims. That means it was the religion that scared him, which once again, they weren't Muslims in the true sense, but distortions of pieces of it.

"Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."

I call bullshit. People like Cheney sow far more destruction and misery than the "radical" Islamists of the world.

Question: does Iran talk about "keeping all options on the table" when it comes to the U.S.? Do they threaten us with destruction every time we do something they don't like? No. But that's exactly what the U.S. and Israel do to them on a weekly basis.

And the most repressive, theocratic, reactionary regime in that region is our biggest ally: good ol' Saudi Arabia. So your "clash of civilizations" is a load of shit

So many comments missing the point here... As far as I can tell you didn't credit or discredit the conclusion, just the boneheaded argument. I was subjected to Maher's reeking excrement of a show by a friend not two weeks ago. His delivery makes me want to punch myself in the face just to escape the self-satisfaction.

Someone above posted: "Anyone who lives near a Muslim community will notice that its residents tend to self-segregate. They prefer separate schools, a fairly homogeneous community to themselves, their own system of internal law, etc. As a result, they do not integrate well into the larger society around them, and thus seem like perpetual strangers."

This argument has been leveled against every ethnic and religious group at one time or another. Catholics have their own separate schools, for example. Many cities have Chinatowns where you will find stores and restaurants with Chinese-language signs, and Chinese products and people speaking Chinese. The Amish do not integrate well to modern society, and have chosen to live apart with their own customs and traditions.

Historically in the US and Canada we have vicitimized the Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese, the African-Americans, the native Americans, the gays, the deaf, the nerds, the teens, the Mormans, the Amish, etc., etc., groups who clung together for their own support. They may seem to be "perpetual strangers" to you, but are you making outreaches to them?

Yes, all of these sub-groups have had to segregate themselves for various reasons. Some of them try uphold their own traditions by schooling their youths. Some try to preserve their ancestral language and culture and religion. Some live separately from mainstream society, or try to carve out a community... or are ghettoized in a community.

All have been mistreated in various ways... and all have been celebrated in many ways.

As a Japanese-Canadian person whose born-in-Canada parents were sent to interment camps during WWII for doing nothing other than being of Japanese decent (my mother's parents were born in Canada, too), I see this Muslim-bashing and Muslim-scapegoating the be a repeat of what happened to my own community.

And while I'm also an atheist, and am none too happy about people naming their kids after prophets or gods (Mohammed, Jesus, Moises, Ganesh), it's not for me to tell people what to name their kids. Nor am I going to be afraid of someone with Mohammed (Muhammed Ali, anyone?) or Islam (Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens?) in their name, or someone who is Muslim (like the way Colbert/Stewart brought Kareem Abdul Jabbar to the stage--he's not scary).

Get over yourself, Maher. I'm sure there have been just as many terrible things done in the history of humankind by people named Bill/William as there have been by people named Mohammed/Muhammad, etc.

Since I am myself an example of the archetype that Mike Young was holding up to ridicule to make his point (a 21-year-old college kid with Asperger's), I'll start off by saying that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Asperger's folks understand emotion perfectly well; it's personal expression and the nuances of emotional relations that makes them uneasy. (In my case, I'm deeply uncomfortable with vulnerability, and openly acknowledging emotion implies a bit of a vulnerability to me. It's not that I don't "get it.") People with Asperger's are as capable of feeling emotion as those who don't, and to suggest otherwise would be similar to suggesting that people without Asperger's can't suppress emotion in favor of logic. Someday, perhaps, pop culture will stop depicting people with Asperger Syndrome as watered-down sociopaths. Until then, I'm stuck with cringe-inducing comparisons like Mr. Young's. (I'll give him and the rest of society the benefit of a doubt on this, and say they just don't know any better. We'll get there, though.)

Also, I realize that you addressed Mike Young's analogy choice in another comment, so I apologize for belaboring the point. It did remind me a bit of your post not too long ago about the difference about political correctness and genuine sensitivity.

I will say it once more

Islam is a RELIGION. Like most religions, it attracts its violent extremists. The violent extremists are committing despicable acts, just like the Christian extremists who bomb abortion clinics.

The issue for Islam, and for all religions is, we should follow the more enlightened members of each religion to not use the religion for our own purposes, but to better ourselves through respecting others.

Even an agnostic (not sure) like Mr. Emerson will agree (I think, since I can't mindread.)

Bill Maher is a tool, 9 times out of 10 and his 'humor' insulting most of the time, but his point is lost in the avalanche of PC comments here. Europe, sometimes referred to as Eurabia, has been overrun by large populations of Muslims- North Africans into France and Turks into Germany for example, to the point that demographic projections indicate that Muslims may well end up the majority in Europe in the not too distant future. Britain is plagued by Islamic radicals like Humza who sponge off the government dole, all the while fomenting hate against the very hand that feeds them! Given the intractability of Islam and its incompatibility with our Western democratic principles that is troubling to say the least. Western democracy shaped the modern world, based on Judeo/Christian philosophy, not Islam, which requires all aspects of life to submit to the dominance of the religion. Being concerned about our way of life being displaced by an Islamic one is not bigotry, it is pragmatic. Every alternative religion or way of life in nations conquered by Islam is oppressed or snuffed out by Islamic dominance, not tolerated in the way that Islam is in Western, Judeo/Christian nations. The freedom that Islam enjoys in the USA is not mirrored in the freedom that Christianity or Judaism enjoys in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria. So Maher is right to be concerned for the future.

Mike Troup, you're correct (though I disagree with your take on Maher's humor) about the point, except that Western Democracy isn't equated with Judeo-Christian philosophy, certainly not in the case of America. Thomas Jefferson, in his New Year's Day letter to the Danbury Baptists in 102, stated that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their act."

Likewise, the Treaty of Tripoli states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

While the Constitutional absolute separation of church and state is unique to America, I think that Democracy and theocracy stand in direct opposition to one another. This isn't a matter of Christianity vs. Islam, it's a matter of a free state vs. a despotic one. It just so happens that the history of Islamic states is bloody and oppressive and that the law of their religion supports this, and as such they are the largest threat to a free world.

Why is it that whenever people don't express bigotry or racism, they are PC?

Anyway, it is absolutely racist what Maher said, just as it is racist what you said. You talk about Europe being 'overrun by large populations of Muslims' and call Europe 'Eurabia' is disgusting. Imagine if New York was described as 'Jewtown' or if people talked about Latinos overrunning the US?

Yes, Muslims may end up the majority, but what of it? You mention Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, but none are liberal democracies.

The reason why we pride ourselves on our tolerance in the West is not because of Judeo-Christian principlas (a fictional term), but because we are liberal democracies.

To say that Islam is incompatible with Western democratic principles is simply nonsence. Indonesia is a Muslim majority nation which is proudly democratic.

As for every 'alternative religion or way of life in nations conquered by Islam is oppressed or snuffed out by Islamic dominance' ignores countries like India. Even in Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Iran, they still adopt religious practises which pre-date Islam.

Oh, and it's a mistake to refer to Western countries as Judeo/Christian. The majority may be Judeo/Christian (which is a madeup term anyway), but Westerns countries are secular. They are no more Judeo/Christian than they are Muslim.

So, no, it's not being pragmatic, it's bigotry. Pure and simple.

Some years ago, I was leafing through a book written by Maher in a book store, and I was completely shocked by the blatent Islamophobia he had written. He may very well dislike all religions, but he hates Islam, and he expresses his hatred in a horrible way.

Extremism is a massive concern, but people need to differentriate between the religion and extremism. That he would say "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it's not because of the race, it's because of the religion. I don't have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?" shows that he is either unable to make such a distinction or that he doesn't think there is a distinction. As such, I have no problem calling him a racist. It is perfectly possible to engage in a serious debate about religious, or Islamic, extremism, however he clearly has not desire to engage in such a debate.

If he wasn't a well-known TV personality, but was just some guy who called up a radio station warning about Islam taking over the world, he would be dismissed as a racist crackpot. Which is what he is. I personally don't want the Western world to be taken over by bigots like him.

Oh, and it might shock him that Muslims do live in the West and they have as much right to live in the West as people like him.

Anyone raised in western European tradition and culture should not be ashamed over feeling remorse when that tradition and culture is threatened. There is nothing shameful about preferring the way of life one has always experienced to one that seems foreign, and is most prominently portrayed in the media in a negative way.

They should feel ashamed if they think it will be threatened by a racial/religious group. Of course it may be due to ignorance, in which case they should make an effort to learn instead of being proud of their ignorance (ala Maher).

I am a Muslim who does NOT have 'Muhammad' for a first name. That being said, I think people in the West DON'T realize that 'Muhammad' is actually rarely used as a first name, even if it officially is the first name of someone.

Muslim parents frequently add 'Muhammad' as a prefix of sorts to the names of their sons (in case of daughters it's 'Mosammat'). It's done out of respect to the prophet, and acknowledges the Muslim heritage of the family. Those are the facts.

But in most countries where Islam is a major religion, people culturally don't have the rigid distinction of first/middle/last names. E.g. in India a Muslim male can have the name Mohammad Shafiul Hassan - here 'Mohammad' is the prefix-thingy, 'Hassan' is the last name/family name, and 'Shafiul' is - in a sense - really what the person's name is! (which would perhaps be shortened to 'Shafi' as a nickname).

However, by Western convention, the same person ends up with the first name of Mohammad!

So no need to be worried, Mr Maher. A few crackpots chanting 'Allahu Akbar' while blowing up things is the farthest thing from Islam - and the real Islam, which promotes kindness and non-aggression, will make sure that its deviant variation will not truimph.

FYI - according to the Quran, Jews and Christians are Muslims too.

Non-Mohammad Muslim: "A few crackpots chanting 'Allahu Akbar' while blowing up things is the farthest thing from Islam - and the real Islam, which promotes kindness and non-aggression, will make sure that its deviant variation will not truimph."

By what standards do you determine what is "real" Islam, and which is false? Most people use the holy book, in this case, the Quran. The Quran explicitly condones murder and martyrdom in the name of Allah, and it doesn't take much to realize that the book is jam packed (like many other "holy" books) with immoral advice, murderous deeds, and horrible guidance. If you choose to cherry pick the niceties from your magic book, that's fine, but please make it clear that is your methodology for determining which believers are the "real" ones, and which believers are the "false" ones. In fact, literalists of the Abrahamic religions tend to know more about their magic books then the moderates, who go through life reading only a handful of friendly passages, disregarding the rest, and professing that the religions are those of peace. I recommend:

1) reading your holy book, entirely, while disregarding what your local Snake Oil Salesman told you
2) reading End of Faith, by Sam Harris. He has citations for portions in the Quran that condone murder of infidels, apostates, and the act of martyrdom
3) avoiding declaring that your version of your religion is the "real" way to follow it, while others are merely perverting it.

The fact is, all 3 of the Abrahamic religions are perversions of clean rational thought, critical thinking values, and the scientific methodology of determining fact from fantasy. Faith (belief without any good evidence, belief in spite of counter-evidence in many cases) is quite possibly the worst concept humans have ever devised to control one another. The fact that societies promote it as a respectable character trait would be laughable, if it didn't result in so much death, destruction, prejudice, and religious faith-based hatred and ignorance.

And this, essentially, is what Bill Maher has explained a number of times on his program, in stand-up comedy routines, in interviews on other shows (Charlie Rose, among others), and in Religulous. Once we, as a society, open the doorway for "faith" (belief based on no evidence), you open the door to anything that anyone chooses to believe, because evidence will never be required to back up the belief. Society will respect you and your inane belief as long as you insert the Get Out of Rationality Faith Card, "It's my faith." - It's a conversation stopper, unfortunately. Of course, most people will be peaceful moderates, as is the situation now. But ask yourself a question. If gathering and presenting evidence isn't required in a society to form your beliefs and separate fact from fantasy, what stops some humans from having literalist viewpoints when it comes to moronic Bronze Age books written by ignorant goat herders? It is the moderates of the Abrahamic religions that give fundamentalism a free pass, because moderates condone Non-Evidence-Based belief systems, those of "faith." As long as faith is a virtue, this world will never, ever be rid of fundamentalists that are willing to murder and torture other human beings because of their fundamental and literal view of their religion. The problem is that most moderates of the Abrahamic religions have been so indoctrinated by preachers, rabbis, and imams for so many years that they cannot begin to see the inherently immoral nature of their magic paper back books. They pick and choose the so-called moral parts, and completely disregard the innumerable portions that suggest and condone rape, torture, murder, war, and ignorance. Studies in the United States show that atheists know more about religions than those who claim to be religious (See Pew Forum's 2010 studies on religion.)

Maher didn't explain himself in this clip extremely well, and started the conversation with something abstract and not necessarily logically linked to Islam. His upset with Islam is not unfounded though, as it is different than Christianity or Judaism in the fact that it promotes the concept of martyrdom. Maher, like many others in the U.S. and European societies (including myself), longs for a day when secularism is upheld to keep the religious NONSENSE away from those that want nothing to do with it. The Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic religions promote many immoral concepts, one of which is the perpetuation of ignorance. They are obsolete in my viewpoint, and have a primary role as a mental shackle that we should all attempt to shatter, by using logic, reason, and evidence.

Take nothing "on faith." Respect those that use evidence to backup their beliefs. Reject those that tell you it has been "personally revealed" to them, and that YOU should also believe their zany lunacy.