Why I Agree With Bill Maher’s Views On Islam

I have been a long-time admirer of Bill Maher because he has the balls to say what many of us just think. Remember this?

“We have been cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” Saying that on an American national network, just a week after the 9/11 attacks, takes courage.  This was in response to George W Bush’s constant “cowardly act” rhetoric.

Earlier this week, Bill Maher was in the news for his clash with Ben Affleck on his show Real Time.

Maher’s point was that liberals don’t stand for liberal values consistently, especially when it comes to calling out Islam. He is right. Many liberals predictably trashed him on the issue.

On CNN, Maher was attacked by protector-of-Islam and scholar Reza Aslan, the go-to guy for Islam and religion.

Reza Aslan’s arguments were weak on substance but, with that earnest face and impressive resumé, they are sometimes taken seriously. Aslan conveniently harps on female genital mutilation (which is not an Islamic custom as I learned) and attempts to debunk Maher’s criticism. Genital mutilation is hardly the fulcrum on which Maher’s entire argument is based. Also, CNN using Maher’s altercation on Real Time as a hook to title their debate “Does Islam Promote Violence?” doesn’t help. However, I’m not making the case that CNN is fair or smart or even that what Maher said is right in every context.

The case I’m making is that Maher is consistent in standing up for liberal principles, which is way more than what many liberals do. And that requires questioning many aspects of Islam as interpreted and practiced in many parts of the world, the combined populations of which add up to a large-enough number, to address the common factor in all of them.

What scholars like Aslan, while pretending to be the liberal and sensible face of Islam do, sometimes successfully, is quibble on details while ignoring the obvious elephant in the room. He does so in many ways, as follows.

Aslan while trying to defend the treatment of women in many Islamic countries says – “Do you know that Muslims have elected 7 women heads of states?” That’s the argument? That 7 Muslim-dominated countries have elected women heads of states makes it a religion in which the majority of its followers espouse a fair and equal gender equation? India has in the past elected Indira Gandhi as PM, giving her powers unlike any other. Many men prostrate themselves, sob like babies and some even attempt suicide if an Amma, Didi or Sonia are hauled up by the law. Does that mean most of Indian and Hindu society is not misogynist and patriarchal? Hell, we about lead the world in female infanticide and foeticide, while also immolating ourselves if Amma is arrested. The two are not mutually exclusive. All Aslan’s arguments do, is point to a truth that has nothing to do with the argument being made and does not nullify it. And this “scholar” calls Bill Maher’s arguments facile.

Each and every criticism of how Islam has in some way been responsible for how society treats minorities, women or human rights in Muslim-majority countries, Aslan ascribes to region and not religion.

“That’s a Pakistani problem, not a Muslim problem.”

“That’s a problem in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not Islam.”

“It’s representative of Saudi Arabia.”

“Women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia… So it’s representative of Saudi Arabia.”

To the anchor’s question –“Is it an open society for women?”Aslan says, “It certainly is in Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh.”

Also,“We’re not having this conversation in a legitimate way. We’re not talking about women in the Muslim world. We’re using two or three examples to justify a generalisation.”

But that is exactly what Aslan does. He repeats the examples of Turkey and Indonesia again and again to debunk the many-other examples of regressive societies put before him. Aceh is also apart of Indonesia where the government has prescribed Sharia law, giving in to pressures from Muslim organisations. A region where you better be careful of the Sharia police. But Aslan conveniently fails to mention this even as he holds Indonesia up as an example of liberal Islam to counter Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran etc.

Here are the countries that have Sharia law in some form or the other.

Countries with Sharia laws. Image source

The mistake Reza makes is that he strips the religious context clean off the argument, pretending it is only region-specific. Yes, it is region-specific, but it is also religion-specific. Neither is mutually exclusive.

Also “Saudi Arabia has beheaded 19 people. Nobody seems to care about that”. Wrong. Maher harps about it all the time on his show.

To pretend each of these flare-ups is only region-specific and has nothing to do with religion can be debunked with just one example. A cartoonist from Denmark posted a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad a few years ago and all hell broke loose.

Here are some reactions from around the world.

A Jordan court tried the Danish cartoonist in absentia.

An Indian minister from UP, Haji Yakub Qureishi, offered a Rs 51 lakh bounty on the head of the cartoonist.

A rally in London protesting the cartoons decided to celebrate the 2005 London bombings which killed 52. Reverberations were felt around the world.

These people here asked the Indian government to sever diplomatic ties with Denmark. Over a cartoon!  It included “Muslim scholars” and even a Member of Parliament.

There was a Christian professor in Kerala: part of his hand was chopped off and his services were terminated by the college for offending some people of the Muslim community with his question paper.

Here I will agree with Aslan, stupidity isn’t specific to a religion. As soon as some loony announced a reward for the Danish cartoonist’s head, Ashok Pandey of the Hindu Personal Law Board announced one on MF Hussain’s head. Probably because, for some, the best way to challenge stupidity is to replicate it. This seems to be the mantra for many Hindu organisations, but luckily there is a critical mass of people who will counter that insanity.That critical mass is important within and outside the community.

While region and cultural aspects are important, how a religion helps create a certain environment can’t be ignored. To say that Indian society’s obsession with hierarchy has nothing to do with the caste-system is neither scholarly nor smart. There is a historical context to any social structure, and religion is part of perpetuating it. Social reformers like Jyotirao Phule, Savitribai Phule, Bhimrao Ambedkar and Bapu among others chipped away at that edifice. Many are doing so even today.  Islam needs that too, and I’m sure it’s happening, but the critical mass doesn’t appear obvious to me. Maher is an important part of that exercise. Because he says things no one else dares to.

What Maher claimed was that liberals need to be consistent in standing up for liberal principles.  He has walked the talk. There is no data that can demonstrate that most priests are child molesters or that all Christians are anti-abortion, but Maher has on Real Time taken those issues head-on. Here are a few instances of him taking on religion in its many manifestations from 2009 to 2014; especially Christianity and the Church and the American right-wing.

On Pope Benedict quitting, and suggesting Hillary Clinton or Oprah as the new Pope.

On news media’s obsession with the new Pope and the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.

On Republicans being the Christian party and Jesus being like Rihanna.

On the terrible tipping habits of Christians in Missouri and a family not tipping a waiter for his “homosexual lifestyle”.

On the movie Noah’s Ark and the Christian God having anger issues like Russell Crowe.  And on Muslims not being able to take a joke.

On how American politics cannot reject religion. On Obama pandering to religious loonies.

On tea-baggers and also his view of what the Bible says.

While trashing all religions says Mormonism takes crazy to a whole new level.

On what the word Catholic means and about Columbus bringing Christianity to the new world. And Adam and Eve’s sin.

These and many other shortcomings of religions need to be highlighted and reformed. Pretending they don’t exist is as foolish as painting all aspects of Islam with the same brush. Yes, Islamophobia exists and is a very real danger. That a very large chunk of the Islamic world through religion is working against liberal values is also very real and a danger.

One could argue that Maher’s comments are rude and offensive. But to say they are bigoted or racist is just wrong, whiny and convenient. To cry bigotry or racism at every criticism of Islam is what is stupid. It also reeks of over-compensation. Liberals have to stand up for liberal values no matter what the context, and no matter who it is they are criticising.

It’s possible the film Lok Parlok, starring Jeetendra and Jaya Prada, that had a lot of fun at the expense of Indian gods and goddesses would have offended some. If it were released today, it is possible the devout bhakt jan or their ally, the Shiv Sena, would have trashed a few movie theatres. But there are enough “sickulars” in Hindu faith who tip the scale in favour of the more rational approach, and at least for now the loonies will remain a fringe element. There are many who think the new dispensation will change that – I disagree, but time will prove me right or wrong. That critical mass needs to be achieved in much of the Islamic world as well. That’s not to say there are no Muslims standing up for liberal principles. There are, and they are paying a very heavy price in extremely oppressive regimes. But the critical mass needed has not been achieved so that their voices become a serious force within the community. Unless everyone; especially Muslims with liberal values speak up, we will always sound like we’re attacking the religion even as liberals are attacked by right-wing Hindus for being “pseudo-secular”.

One can’t have a liberal view on one’s own religion and not on another. Bill Maher doesn’t have to prove his credentials to anyone on sticking up for liberal principles. He has done it throughout his career, with Christianity and the Church being his favorite whipping-boys. Now if he decides to subject Islam to the same scrutiny, calling him bigoted is, and I quote Reza Aslan here, “I use the words seriously here – stupid”, and also lazy.

I have for long been toying with the idea of commissioning a comic with Modi as the new Prophet, since he evokes a similar hysterical reaction among many of his followers. I haven’t had the courage to – yet. It’s because I fear for myself, and Newslaundry. By Aslan’s logic I shouldn’t, since I live in India and not Saudi Arabia – but I do. Because I know what goes on here. It would be the perfect excuse for loony elements on both sides (Bhakt jan and Bhai-jaan) who hate freedom of speech and expression, to come down on us. I should be able to do so without fearing for my safety and that of my colleagues. It’s a shame I can’t, and that is what is wrong with liberalism in India and Islam in way too many countries.

Bill Maher at least has the balls to call it out.

When we have the resources to defend ourselves I might just grow a pair and do that comic. Until then, it’s playing in my mind like a movie and I don’t believe there can be a fatwa issued for what’s going on in there – yet.

Credits: Sharia law data compiled by Mahima Singh, Bill Maher’s clips researched and edited by Kartik Nijhawan, Sharia law map designed by Venkateshwaran Selvaraj.