• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Maher vs. Affleck: Islam “is the only religion that acts like the mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing”

Oct 7, 2014 11:17 am By Robert Spencer

This exchange has already gone around the world and back while I’ve been too busy to give it sufficient attention, but I thought it still worth noting here because it may (may) represent more than just the awakening of Bill Maher to reality. It may represent the beginning of the end of the mainstream media and Leftist (redundant, I know) elites’ unanimous downplaying of the jihad threat and demonization of anyone and everyone who opposes it. Maher and his guest on this show, the atheist author Sam Harris, are now discovering what their erstwhile friends and allies on the Left do to all (all) those who dare to point out how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism: they’re being reviled as “bigots” and “racists” and “Islamophobes,” and not just on this show by Affleck.

One wonders if this will herald an opening up of mainstream media discourse. Maher only very rarely has anyone on his show who isn’t a doctrinaire Leftist (or clueless politically correct Republican operatives like Michael Steele), and people like him and Harris generally only engage in discussion and debate with others on the Left. The irony here is that critics of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism are branded as “right wing” solely because of their opposition to jihad terror, and then have duly been shunned and ignored (when not being vilified, of course) by those on the Left. Now that Maher and Harris have “succumbed to bigotry” and “veered to the Right,” will there be an opening-up of the public debate on these issues? I doubt it, actually, but the Maher/Affleck contretemps does at least show a crack in the edifice.

“Bill Maher vs. Ben Affleck On Islam: ‘Mafia That Will F**king Kill You If You Say The Wrong Thing,'” Real Clear Politics, October 3, 2014:

Bill Maher and Ben Affleck engaged in a heated debate over radical Islam and Islamophobia on Friday’s broadcast of Real Time on HBO.

Aided by author Sam Harris, Maher contended radical Islamists are essentially a “mafia” that will kill you if you say or draw the wrong thing. Affleck argued that condemning a whole religion based on jihadists that make up a small fraction of Islam isn’t fair.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who was also on the panel, said the criticism of Islam has “a tinge of how white racists talk about African-American and define blacks.”

On last week’s broadcast of Real Time, Maher went after Islam and argued “if we’re giving no quarter to intolerance, shouldn’t we be starting the mutilators and the honor killers?”

BEN AFFLECK: How about more than a billion people who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punch women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray 5 times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.

Note how well Affleck has absorbed the standard Leftist talking points. Maher and Harris started the segment talking about bad ideas that need to be opposed. Affleck jumps in to say that not all Muslims are like that. No one said they were, of course, but Affleck is reflecting the fact that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies have insisted for years that to oppose jihad terror is to condemn all Muslims. The point of this is to intimidate people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror, and Affleck demonstrates how well it works. He also demonstrates that he, like so many others, hasn’t really given this a moment’s thought, because if he had, he’d be ashamed to say it. This becomes clear via a transposition. Say that in 1942, the grandfathers of Maher and Harris were condemning Nazism, and Affleck’s grandfather jumped in to say that not all Germans were like that. The proper response would be, “Yes, and so?” The Affleck argument is apparently that because not all Muslims are jihadis or wife-beaters, therefore it is wrong to speak out against jihad and the Qur’anic approval of woman-beating (4:34). Did the existence of good Germans make it wrong to stand against the Nazis? Did those good Germans rein in the Nazis and stop their atrocities?

HARRIS, AUTHOR: I’m not saying all Muslims —

AFFLECK: Some of them do bad things and you’re painting the whole religion with that broad brush.

Affleck here ignores, and probably doesn’t know, that these “bad things” have textual justification in the Qur’an and Hadith, as well as in Islamic law, and that thus it is not simply a matter of people doing bad things. Those bad things are being taught approvingly by all too many Muslim teachers and leaders, and thus there will continue to be more people doing bad things until the teachings themselves are addressed.

MAHER: Wait, let’s get down to who has the right answer here. A billion people, you say.

AFFLECK: A billion five.

MAHER: All these billion people don’t hold these pernicious beliefs?

AFFLECK: They don’t.

MAHER: That’s just not true, Ben. That’s just not true. You’re trying to say that these few people, that’s all the problem is, these few bad apples. The idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic

AFFLECK: That’s horrible.

MAHER: But you’re saying the idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic religion is just a few bad apples?

AFFLECK: The people who would actually believe in that you murder someone if they leave Islam is not the majority of Muslims at all…

Affleck, of course, doesn’t know a thing about Islam. It is a shame that Maher and Harris themselves know very little, so that neither was able to respond here to Affleck by pointing out that this is not a minority view at all, but one that comes from Muhammad himself, when he commanded: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Also, in recent years wherever we have seen Islamic law imposed, we see the death penalty for apostasy imposed. Where do Muslims all get this idea if not from the texts and teachings of Islam?

SAM HARRIS: Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have jihadists, these are people who wake up wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying. They believe in paradise, they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them, we have Islamists, these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system. They’re not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 20% of the Muslim world.

BEN AFFLECK: What are you basing that research on?

HARRIS: There are a bunch of poll results that we can talk about. To give you one point of contact: 78% of British Muslims think that the Danish cartoonist should have been prosecuted. 78%. So, I’m being conservative when I roll this back to 20%. But outside of that circle you have conservative Muslims who can honestly look at ISIS and say that does not represent us, we’re horrified by that but they hold views about human rights, and about women, and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling. So, these are not Islamists, they are not jihadists, but they often keep women and homosexuals immiserated in these cultures and we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change it. And lying about doctrine and this behavior is not going to do that…

MICHAEL STEELE, FMR. RNC CHAIR: So having said that, even if that is true, statistically or otherwise, the key thing to recognize that I don’t think is part of the argument but I think should be is that there are voices that are oftentimes raised in opposition to these jihadists and to these extreme acts but, guess what, they don’t covered, they don’t get exposed. And they’re not on the same level platform that we see jihadists get.

This is another common Hamas-linked CAIR talking point: there are gazillions of moderates out there, but the Islamophobic mainstream media just won’t give them attention. This is, of course, absurd. The mainstream media is avid to find moderate Muslims, and gives lavish and loving attention to any Muslim who claims to oppose and condemn jihad terrorism, however insincere he or she may be. This is one principal reason for the fame of people like Reza Aslan and Zuhdi Jasser (not to compare them, as one is a jihad enabler with ties to the Iranian mullahs and the other appears sincere) is that people on all points of the political spectrum want to find and stand with moderate Muslims. They get immense coverage even for the smallest gesture — witness the recent 10-person anti-Islamic State rally in Houston, positively covered on the local news, compared to our 2010 rally against the Ground Zero Mosque, which drew upwards of 20,000 people and got hardly any coverage at all, and none that wasn’t negative.

BILL MAHER: One reason they don’t get exposed is because they’re afraid to speak out because it’s the only religion that acts like the mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7…

All true, so Affleck leaps to caricature Maher’s point and change the subject back to Muslim victimhood:

AFFLECK: What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what? We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more —

MAHER: I’m not for more dead Muslims.

AFFLECK: And somehow we’re exempt from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that’s why we invaded Iraq.

Tu quoque fallacy: we’re bad too, with the unspoken corollary apparently being that because we are bad, we must not speak against jihad terror.

MAHER: We’re not convincing anybody here.

AFFLECK: I’m simply telling you that I disagree with you.

MAHER: I understand, and we’re obviously not convincing anybody here.

HARRIS: You don’t understand my argument.

AFFLECK: Your argument is, “You know, black people, they shoot each other” —

MAHER: It’s not! No, it’s not. It’s based on facts. I can show you a Pew poll of Egyptians. They are not outliers in the Muslims world. It’s like 90% of them believe death is the appropriate response to leaving the religion. If 90% of Brazilians thought that death was the appropriate response to leaving Catholicism you would think it was a bigger deal.

He would have done better to go into Islamic texts and teachings, but then, of course, Affleck would have said he was quoting them out of context, and ignoring all the wonderful teachings in the Qur’an.

AFFLECK: I would think it’s a big deal no matter what.

MAHER: Okay, well, that’s the facts.

AFFLECK: I wouldn’t say it’s all Brazilians, or I wouldn’t say, “Well, Ted Bundy did this. God damn these gays, they’re all trying to eat each other.”

HARRIS: Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith siresly [sic], who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.

AFFLECK: ISIS couldn’t couldn’t full a AA ballpark in Charleston, West Virginia and you want to make a career out of ISIS, ISIS, ISIS.

The Islamic State has between 10,000 and 50,000 combat troops. Appalachian Power Park in Charleston, West Virginia holds 4,500 people.

MAHER: No we’re not. That’s the opposite.

HARRIS: No, it’s not just ISIS, it’s all jihadists. It’s a phenomenon of global jihad.

MAHER: I think that’s the opposite of what we’re doing.

AFFLECK: There is those things. There is ISIS, there is global jihadists. The question is the degree to which you’re willing to say, because I’ve witnessed this behavior, which we all object to on part of these people, I’m willing to flatly condemn those of you I don’t know and never met.

MAHER: They’re not willing. This is based on reality.

HARRIS: It’s not condemning people, it’s ideas.

That’s the key point, which Affleck never grasps or acknowledges, in part because Maher and Harris here argue it poorly, without reference to Islamic texts and teachings. How can you criticize ideas without being able to articulate what those ideas are? Most of this discussion was off-point, for Maher and Harris said they were criticizing ideas, but then instead of explaining how Islamic texts justify and promote these bad ideas, they started talking about survey numbers.

MAHER: It’s based on reality, Ben. We’re not take it up that in the Muslim world it is mainstream belief.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF: This is such a caricature of Indonesia, of Malaysia, of so much of the world. And this does have a tinge a little bit of how white racists talk about African-American and define blacks by —

Kristof must not know what is happening in Indonesia and Malaysia these days. In any case, note the racial analogy. Islamic terror is not a race, but because so many (but by no means all) Muslims are non-white, Leftist intellectuals like Kristof can’t see criticism of jihad terror in anything but racial terms.

MAHER: What you’re saying is because they are a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.

AFFLECK: It’s not a minority, it’s the second biggest religion in the world.

MAHER: Exactly, but you’re treating them like a minority. I mean if Filipinos were capturing teenagers and sending them into white slavery, we would criticize that. We wouldn’t say, oh, well, they’re Filipinos.

AFFLECK: You would criticize the people who are doing it, not the Philippines. A Filipino kid who lives on the streets has nothing to do with that. These are different things.

Again, out of focus. To say that one must not criticize Filipinos capturing teenagers and enslaving them because other Filipinos aren’t doing this would be absurd. Affleck constantly assumes that Maher and Harris are condemning all Muslims, just as Leftists constantly assume that all critics of jihad terror are condemning all Muslims. This false and unwarranted assumption continues to befog the public discourse on this issue, and make politically correct non-thinkers like Affleck assume that there is something wrong with standing against jihad terror.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: "Islamophobia", "Tiny Minority of Extremists", Jihad doctrine, Leftist/Islamic Alliance, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Peter Buckley says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:27 am

    The video’s been pulled-…..I wonder why….. Come on Robert……..

    Someone has to put it back up.

  2. Robert Spencer says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Peter

    Try it now.

  3. Bob Smith says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:38 am

    The truth about Islam’s is slipping out of the bag.

    Afflec and other leftists are not going to be able to stop this truth. They only make themselves look like fools.

    • Frank Scarn says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm

      The really good thing from all of this?

      That Islam and its fundamentals are at long last getting an airing in the MSM; that Muslim practices are being talked about. Not their beliefs. Who cares what they believe.* It’s how they behave that matters, particularly to us as non-Muslims.

      What few know is that the Muslims’ basic law, the Shariah, tells Muslims how to conduct every minute of their lives, from worship rituals to criminal law to bathroom practices to – significantly for you and me – how Muslims are to treat or mistreat the infidel. Nothing is left to chance. That’s why Muslims practices are important to the world at large – because for Muslims and their sense of superiority they are to lord it over us infidels.

      By word count 60% of the Koran, per Bill Warner (Center for Political Islam blog), concerns itself with how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims.

      That’s why getting Islam out into the open is important.

      Bravo, Bill Maher.

      Footnote,
      * If Muslims want to believe that Allah caused Gabriel to visit Mohammed and whisper into his ear that henceforth all Muslims should worship the historical Arabian moon god named Allah and a big black rock in Mecca among other things, who cares. That’s their choice. Believe what you want so long as you don’t bother the rest of us who want nothing to do with Islam.

      But what we non-Muslims object to is Political Islam, namely the outer manifestations of this self-inflated religion which requires both Muslim and non-Muslim to behave in certain ways.

      As Jefferson stated the matter, “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But when your neighbor or associate believes that his God commands him to pick your pocket or break your leg, his beliefs become a matter of grave concern for anyone who does not share those beliefs.

      • john spielman says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm

        I agree, however; it’s what they believe and who they believe in which triggers their urge to kill rape lie steal and intimidate others
        The qur’an the hadiths of muhammed determine how muslims behave. ISIS is islam in most base and literal and historical because muhammed-pbuh* behaved this way and faithful muslims must behave this way. Beside ONLY by dying in battle against unbelievers can muslims,according to their vile theology , bypass the good deed vs bad deed judgement ahd go directly to the brothel in the sky!

        *pbuh-perpetual banishment unto hell!

    • Tradewinds says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 2:12 pm

      Bob – after “Argo” I would think Affleck would be smarter than this. But, apparently not.

      • Wtf? says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 5:42 pm

        I used to respect Ben as an actor and a person. I am going to put his argument down to ignorance and hopefully he will do some more investigation to get a clearer picture. At the very least the practises of this death cult are being discussed on prime time TV which as Robert has said will help the cause for the free world.

        • Max Publius says

          Oct 7, 2014 at 6:34 pm

          I think Affleck is permanently indoctrinated by his childhood neighbor, Howard Zinn, the anti-American historian. According to Zinn, everything evil ever done was done by white male Christians. Affleck is on a permanent apology tour.

          Affleck is also interested in running for political office, meaning his style will forever be about appeasing low-information voters who are also indoctrinated by Zinn-style schooling.

      • Zimriel says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 11:10 pm

        No, “Argo” is as consistent with Affleck’s views as Aslan’s condemnation of ISIS is consistent with Aslan’s.

        Affleck is Miramax, and Miramax is Qatar, and Qatar is extremist Sunnism. Affleck will gladly regale us night and day with how awful Khomeinism is; because Khomeini was a Shi’ite. Affleck will never condemn Qatar and he will -as we’ve seen here- find excuses not to condemn ISIS.

        Similarly, Aslan will shout about ISIS all day long but he won’t ever say boo against his Iranian paymasters.

    • Neil Jennison says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      They are fools. They have this stupid idea that criticism of a religion is racist.

  4. Peter Buckley says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:40 am

    Had to google the name of the show on Youtube. So found the whole thing.

    The relevant quote is at 6:40:

  5. Don McKellar says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Really, Mahr and Harris, if you’re going to go on TV and take the piss out of Islam and retarded celebrities like Affleck who are just faking it when it comes to Islam, you have to prepare yourself like a professional debater. These idiots have pretty much nothing. They always have the same “points” that have been programmed into them and none of them stand up at all to any scrutiny. If you want to change the leftist sphere discourse on Islam so that it’s about what Islam is really about and needs to be held accountable for, then you have no choice. Get Spencer.

    • eib says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 12:32 pm

      I would suggest strongly that Maher and Harris familiarize themselves with Karl Popper’s case against tolerance of the intolerant immediately. A lesson in the Koran and early medieval history would not hurt them either.

      • Don McKellar says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 1:06 pm

        That’s one for me to read! The Open Society and its Enemies. Looks great from a quick skim and review! Yes, the paradox of tolerance. The harm we do when tolerating the intolerance of Islam. That and a little Koran prep from Robert Spencer — then put them on fact cards or, better, have a Koran and hadiths on the desk with sticky notes on the desk and confront fools like Affleck with the texts before them. When they use the cannard “out of conext” then demand that they tell us what the “real” context is. None will. Not even an imam when put on the spot.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 12:28 am

      Here’s another idea.

      American jihadwatchers could write to Mr Maher and suggest that he create a special program in honour of Dutch film-maker, social critic and general gadfly, Theo Van Gogh.

      This November it will be exactly ten years since he was murdered – assassinated – by a self-appointed sharia hit-man, in broad daylight, in a street in the Netherlands. The hit-man, having shot him, got out a knife and attempted to behead him.

      Why was Theo killed? Like Asma bint Marwan back in the day he was assassinated because he had criticised Islam: he had helped ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali make a short film – “Submission” – criticising Muslim misogyny and exposign its roots in the Islamic texts.

      On the anniversary of Theo Van Gogh’s assassination, in early November, “Submission” could be aired – in full, preceded by a ten-twenty-minute introduction in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali would speak in honour of her late friend Theo Van Gogh – for he *was* her friend, not merely a colleague – and discuss why and how she and he came to make the film, and what they were hoping to achieve. Ayaan could also explain to the audience the awful fact that the Muslim murderer of Theo Van Gogh was acting in accord with the diktats of classical Islam, as derived from the example of Mohammed in the Sira and Hadiths.

      If such a program were put together, it would function as an ‘unpacking’, graphic illustration and underlining of the totally true and correct point that Mr Maher made when he said Islam was “the only religion that acts like the mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book”.

      And into the bargain, because of the subject matter of “Submission”, which includes a highlighting of certain key Quranic verses, it would show that Muslim misogyny is also hardwired into the Islamic system.

      Someone, somewhere, has to *smash* to bits the taboo against public fact-based critique of Islam: of Islam as such.

  6. rubiconcrest says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Once ‘someone else’ says the things that the main stream media is afraid to say they can report it. So we have seen in the last few days the ‘ex-muslim’ from the OK mosque(credit JW) and the Bill Maher program exchange reported on major networks. But where is the investigative journalism? Why haven’t we seen CNN, MSNBC, 60 Minutes, Fox or Project Veritas undercover inside the neighborhood mosque?

    • pumbar says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 1:30 am

      Channel 4 in the UK did exactly that; and got investigated by the police for it…

  7. Boston Tea Party says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 11:57 am

    The lefties always follow the same pattern–histrionic indignation, moral equivalence arguments, and then call your opponent a racist. What’s revealing is how often, after they can no longer counter the factual arguments, they then end up with “Well, then what’s your solution?” I think at that point we get to the crux of the deeper rationalizations for many on the left. It’s not that they actually can’t see the proof that Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology—of course they can, as most aren’t complete idiots. it’s just that the implications to acknowledging that are so overwhelming, and solutions aren’t really clear. It would force them to reexamine their entire worldview, and they would rather stick with the comfortable lie of Multiculturalism than do that.

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 2:00 pm

      What’s revealing is how often, after they can no longer counter the factual arguments, they then end up with “Well, then what’s your solution?”

      I’ve encountered this particular PC MC spasm from a few inside the Counter-Jihad.

  8. Beagle says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I posted this in the Sean Hannity thread but it really belongs here:

    It is noteworthy that so-called “Islamophobes” like Maher _always_ know more about Islamic scripture, current events, and history than apologists like Affleck.

    I was closer to the Affleck position in early 2000. At that point my knowledge of Islam was once briefly skimming a Quran someone had left behind in a rental property. In October of 2000 the USS Cole was attacked. I began my study of Islam and jihad terror groups soon after.

    By 9/11/01 I knew Bin Laden had attacked the US again when I saw the second airplane hit the WTC live on TV. Seconds later I was explaining Bin Laden to people on the Internet I was so confident it was his organization. By 2006ish I was proposing a “Former Muslim Protection Program” on the Internet to deal with the violent portable theocratic state Islam is in reality.

    The durability and impenetrability of Affleck’s ignorance is amazing to watch. He’s just believing and doing what he’s told by our deceitful institutions. Nothing unique about that. But his willingness to expound as an expert on something he’s obviously never studied in the slightest and to defame others who have is a fantastic example of prideful hubris and the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 3:04 pm

      I do wish idiots like Affleck would stick to their jobs, instead of inflicting the rest of us with their ignorant and ill-informed twaddle.

      Just act, Affleck, and keep your stupidities to yourself.

      • Ted says

        Oct 8, 2014 at 12:21 am

        I, for one, am henceforth boycotting Affleck movies. I’m done with this turkey. I like him as an actor, but so what. He’s on the wrong side and he’s seen the last of my “green stuff.” Hit him where it hurts, his wallet. Maybe that will shut him up.
        Better yet:
        Boycott Hollywood!!!!!!!!
        95% of what they churn out is leftist crap anyway, so refuse to view their garbage. Boycott them peeps!!!!!!

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 12:41 am

      Beagle

      that’s really interesting.

      You wrote –

      “I was closer to the Affleck position in early 2000.

      “At that point my knowledge of Islam was once briefly skimming a Quran someone had left behind in a rental property.

      “In October of 2000 the USS Cole was attacked. I began my study of Islam and jihad terror groups soon after…”.

      I just have to ask: what impression did the Quran make on you, at that first reading? Anything sink in? And what made you – in October 2000 – then think, “I need to know more about this Islam sh*t”?? And where did you look to find out, and how did you manage to avoid being deceived by all the rosy-coloured / whitewashed pro-Isam propaganda that’s been sloshing about in abundance throughout the past twenty years and more.?

      Also must ask: Jihadwatch started up in October 2003. When and how did you first find Jihadwatch?

      An observation. You read a Quran someone left behind in a rental property.

      That suggests an idea. There is an opportunity for jihadwatchers to leave things behind “accidentally on purpose”. Copies of the Barnabas Fund booklet “What is Sharia?” for instance. If, for example, anyone here ever stays at one of those self-catering holiday cabins that has a bookshelf stocked with the miscellaneous paperbacks and glossy magazines accidentally or deliberately left behind by previous users of the premises: before you leave, just casually tuck an Islamorealist pamphlet, booklet or book in amongst the cheap romances, thrillers, detective stories and such, waiting to be found by someone who’s feeling bored on a rainy day. Johnny Appleseed, Johnny Appleseed.

  9. Ofay Cat says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    I will NEVER pay a penny to see a Ben Affleck movie again … I will also discourage everyone I know for seeing Ben Affleck movies. He is an traitor and a fool. Even Bill Maher made sense in this instance. I never thought I would be on his side about anything ….

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of actors & actresses (it’s politically incorrect now to even distinguish the gender) — not to mention writers, directors and producers — are PC MC about Islam, and if one were to take a principled & consistent stand on this, one would end up forswearing pretty much all movies and TV & cable shows. Nevertheless, some are more egregious than others; and certainly Ben Affleck, George Clooney, and Angelina Jolie are among the worst.

      With Ben Affleck, his name could well be the essential equivalent of the dhimmi Christian Michel Aflaq; and this phenomenon of the dhimmi Christian immigrant to the West seems to be a noticeably distinct one — as when we learn that two others of Middle Eastern Christian descent — Tony Shalhoub and Casey Kasem — have spent time and energy in anti-Israel pro-Palestinian causes.

      • voegelinian says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 2:42 pm

        Although F. Murray Abraham does have the distinction of acting in perhaps the only movie that actually tackles Islamic terrorism in something approaching an honest and informed manner — alas, not a well-known Hollywood movie, but a rather obscure 2006 film by Italian director Renzo Martinelli, The Stone Merchant (also co-starring Harvey Keitel as a Muslim convert terrorist!).

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Oct 8, 2014 at 12:51 am

        You’re wrong.

        About his ancestry.

        His wikipedia entry identifies him as being of “English, Scottish, Irish and German” ancestry. There’s an interview on the record in which he states plainly that his dad is Scottish and his mum Irish.

        The surname Affleck is *Scottish*.

        There is abundant evidence (including a string of Scottish Afflecks going back to the early 18th century).

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affleck

        His second name, Geza, has gar nichts to do with Islam: “His parents named him Géza for a Hungarian friend who survived the Holocaust”.

  10. Jaladhi says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    This is what you get when a bunch of ignorant people discuss a subject they know nothing about!! Another analogy may be six blind man describing an elephant in the room!! LOL….

  11. mariam rove says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    I saw this video last night. Mahr put him in his place. M

  12. Jaladhi says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    I wonder what makes a lefty/liberal so stupid and brain dead that he cannot distinguish between good and evil, moral and immoral. Is it because of sheer hypocrisy that prevents them from acknowledging the truth about anything they don’t believe in or they are just stupid???

    • Rob says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 1:48 pm

      Jaladhi,
      It’s because the leftie has supplanted an ideology for truth. He/she has a set of ideas that they believe and a tribe that they belong to. Their tribe is a collection of victim groups, with muslims being one of those groups. Part of their belief is that to oppose any of these victim groups is to be bigoted and/or racist. This, of course, is not true, however, their ideology of leftism, which they have over layed over truth, comes in and says, ‘You would be racist to say anything bad about islam’. And so it goes. Emotion, outrage, and personal attacks are all they have because truth is not on their side.

    • Islamisdeath says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm

      Affleck and his ilk are so insulated from reality that they believe that if they decide something Is a certain way then that is the way is. Like spoiled coddled children the lot of them.

  13. eib says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    Affleck’s silent majority of muslims is why terrorism continues. The peaceful demeanour of the many excuses the genocidal violence of the few. One ideology, one teaching, one monstrous cover for slavery and mass murder.

  14. Sweetness says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    My humble and simple approach to this conflagration is to point out the difference between the song and the singer. The recipie and the baker. The drink and the drinker. The argument and the debater. Simple really. I encourage you to try. The teaching remains the same year after year but the students vary in tenacity and ability and goals. Bird seed and birds.
    Most fish don’t get caught because only few fishermen are master-baiters

  15. PRCS says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    “Affleck constantly assumes that Maher and Harris are condemning all Muslims”

    Unfortunately for Affleck’s position, every Muslim on the planet (every individual Muslim) who has read the Qur’an for themselves and understands the mother lode of punishments and humiliations which Islam commands THEM to impose on we “filthy unbelievers” and yet remains a follower when the means and conditions exist to leave “the faith” deserves to be condemned.

    • Beagle says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 1:18 pm

      At least a Muslim should be able to forthrightly say about ayat 9.29 (convert, sharia and jizya, or die), “I don’t believe in that.” Anything less would be uncivilized. Clearly other passages are problematic as well. But with IS running around like Genghis Khan quoting 9.29, that’s a minimum standard to consider a Muslim possibly not a threat.

      Which, needless to say here, is disconcerting in the extreme. Very few Muslims will openly question a single letter in the Quran, much less an entire ayat. The amazingly ‘perfect’ Quran is one of their favorite talking points.

      • PRCS says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm

        I understand why an illiterate Muslim woman with 5 kids and a mean husband living in the Hindu Kush can only THINK what she thinks. After all, how many beatings did it take her to know what would follow.

        But I have NO sympathy for literate Muslims, who, living in kuffar countries like ours, with really so very little reprisal to fear from their fellow supremacists, and knowing what the Big Book actually says about the rest of us, chose to remain SOA (Slaves of Allah).

        • Roderick MacUalraig says

          Oct 8, 2014 at 9:08 am

          Aloha Senior…

          Agreed!

      • Demmahom says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm

        What you say here could be the basis of a “social experiment” video. On Oct 3rd, a video entitled “MUSLIM HATE IN AUSTRALIA | A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT” http://youtu.be/wZVqUU_R9Vc was published with over 650,000 views so far in 4 days showing ordinary Australians uniformly defending an islamicly dressed woman and boy from bigoted harassment.

        Now a video should be made putting the spotlight on ordinary Muslims, asking if they believe in 9:5 and 9:29. First ask them what writings are the authoritative basis of their region. Then read those verses and ask if they agree with them. If they say they’re taken out of context, ask them what Tafsirs explain the meaning of these verses, what Hadith collections and biographies of Mohammed explain the context of their pronouncement, what books of jurisprudence (fiqh) that they have studied to grasp their true meaning, and present them to them.

        I think broadly speaking, there will be two outcomes to these interviews:

        1. Some good hearted muslims will say they disagree with such passages. (All those who take this position should have their faces blurred out for their protection.) Then these should be shown those authorities which say that if they disagree in their hearts, that means apostasy, and asked “are you apostasizing?” and “do you need protection?” If any say they just want to keep this to themselves and remain with their community, ask “can you in good conscience remain in a community in which such views are authoritative?”

        2. The rest will be monuments to evasiveness, or to honest so-called ‘radical’ islam.

        And the “social experiment” video would end with a breakdown of the results.

  16. moray watson says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Why is it so difficult for commentators to differentiate the totalitarian ideology that underpins all of islam from the range of tactics being used by muslims to achieve their supremacist objectives?

    All muslims are totalitarians. Not all muslims however, are prepared to apply terrorist tactics to achieve the submission of infidels.

    Therefore, I am opposed to the political ideology of islam (because I don’t want to live in a totalitarian society), but I am ALSO opposed to muslims REGARDLESS of their tactics.

  17. bicky says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Affleck is faking it, he knows the truth, he is doing it for the money, his career, another traitor.

  18. Jim says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Wow, Affleck is giving Sean Penn a run for his money on the “Most Delusional Leftist” list.

  19. PRCS says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    I can’t speculate on what Affleck’s comebacks would have been had Harris used more specific arguments.

    He’s very typically calm and methodical, and frequently humorous In his presentations. Citing specific Qur’anic passages, doesn’t appear to be his style.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ06Ca9QKME

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yug4o6G08

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMFsO58hXVM
    The last one is funny.

    I think he may have simply been taken aback by Affleck’s arrogant aggressiveness.

    • Roderick MacUalraig says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 9:17 am

      Indeed, Affleck argues from emotion, loudness, the largeness of his fame, & personality … not rationality.

      Harris has to be listened to closely and carefully. Something everyone is capable of doing, including Affleck.

      But they dismiss because of social conditioning, politics, emotions, etc.

      No courage to bore down deep and look at things as deeply as you possibly can.

  20. manuel-rafael says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Addressing this war of Ideological Genocide by calling the religious aspect of its criminal nature as an acceptable act, blaming the minority within it, ignores the true nature of the issue that this is a Fascist Mohammedan Islamiism, like Naziism it is an ideology of selective and oppressive religious colonization.
    That is not to say all Moslems are the ISIS/IL components of this “living space, sacred space” or to be honest as to the obvious what does “The Islamic State” imply?
    ignoring the “broad brush” the stateless state of conquering; the annihilation of “infidels” to their cause, the strategies of the Third Reich’s Death Squads and T.E. Lawrence’s “war by revolution” when Syria fell to the Arab Revolt ending the Ottoman Turkey Empire is to enable these hordes of jihadi locusts and their War Crimes as if observing a “Reality Show” that IS real from a safe distance insulated, isolated from the reality of mass murder of mostly innocent Moslems because of their different opinion on War by Religion that cannot be called for what it is, the justified political correctness of Crimes Against Humanity, the “ditch” mass executions are too similar to the “Final Solution” its wholesale racial purity denied by the subjugation of the Group Think Mentality of the “struggle” and what what is as opposed to what it is, Total Genocide usually ends in Total War, the “Moderate Rebels” funded , armed and trained by the U.S., U.K, and others involved in this deceit are just as culpable but since the Sovereignty of the Country has been “Unconditionally Surrendered” to Qatar and Turkey, maybe we are not only talking religion but a tactical offense against the Civilized World, irrespective of Judeo Christian Theological Teachings, that despite their denials is based on the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, Semites.

  21. William says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    HARRIS: Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith siresly [sic], who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.

    Would one expect Muslims who are nominal Muslims and who don’t take the faith seriously to reform their faith? I don’t think so. A nominal Muslim has no fervor for his religion, by definition. Look at the Christian Reformation as an example! Did nominal Christians reform the religion by breaking away from the Catholic Church? I don’t think so. They were devout Christians, not nominal Christians. Waiting on the billions of nominal Muslims – if we take it that they are really nominal – to reform their religion is a phantasm.

  22. Jayell says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    ….”Islam “is the only religion that acts like the mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing”….. But it’s NOT a ‘religion’ by our Western standards. It’s a controlling cult (and an evil one at that!). Which is why it does not behave like a ‘religion’.

  23. duh_swami says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Affleck, of course, doesn’t know a thing about Islam.

    And that is the bottom line…I run into this all the time. People who have never cracked the book, and don’t even know what a hadith is, refuse to listen to people who have, and pretend they know something when they actually know nothing. These people resist education and insist on staying stupid. I don’t know what they get out of this, Allah is not going to give them any virgins…

    • Tradewinds says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 2:20 pm

      So right, swami.

  24. Daniel says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Robert underestimates Sam Harris. The man has done a lot of research on all religions and is no layperson. Also, although he is generally soft spoken, he pulls no punches. This kind of debate does not suit him because he will not engage in a shouting match, no matter how badly the rest of the company acts. He is too thoughtful. But he is a good man to have on your side in this debate.
    Read “The End of Faith’ by him.

    • wildjew says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 pm

      Have you read his book “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason”? I was tempted to buy it until I read that he treats every religion as equally violent from its inception, or did I get the wrong impression? Why did Harris keep inserting himself in this debate? Why didn’t he let Bill Maher get a word in edgewise?

      • Beagle says

        Oct 7, 2014 at 3:59 pm

        Harris never says all religions are equally prone to violence. He says the “problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam.”

        Harris often cites Jainism as the polar opposite. Jains avoid killing anything, including bugs while walking down the street.

        I knew a Jainist in college who only ate plants which were not killed in order to harvest the food. He ate a lot of nuts off trees.

        • RKM says

          Oct 8, 2014 at 9:03 am

          I appreciate that succinct defense of Harris.

          Well said.

          People dismiss the atheist thinker rather quickly, without examining their utterances.

          And I’m NOT speaking as an Atheist. I’m speaking as a believer in an engineer behind a grand experiment.

          It seems to me that those heir to the religious teachings and theories of the Middle East have the question of “God” settled.

          They are sure. Well, I’m not among the sure. And so I appreciate the renegade questioning mind of the Harris, Hitchens, etc.

          R/ RKMacUalraig

  25. wildjew says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Maher the far-left iconoclast.

    Leave it to a Jew – even a far-left atheist – to smash popular, cherished idols.

  26. Aldridk says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    This is an excellent video because it exposes how most liberals think.

    Having a thoughtful and honest discussion about Islam is impossible with most leftists. Simply, because they are incapable of understanding logic and have renounced the use of reason. Hence, in this instance, a candid and articulate critique of a religion and its doctrine is turned into just another mechanism for stereotyping and bigotry.

    Like Maher said- we are just not going to convince these people.

  27. Julia says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    What is it with the New York Times and their strange racism fetish? They are determined to see racism as the root cause of every problem. I actually heard a New York Times columnist on CNN last night say that people’s fear of Ebola is tied to racism somehow. Whaaaa??? Fear of death isn’t racism. Islam isn’t a “race.” Why do they consistently derail otherwise logical discussions by indulging in their neurotic obsession with racism? These people should be talking to mental health professionals, not put on panels to showcase their confabulations.

    It baffles me the way otherwise intelligent people lose all logic when the topic of Islam comes up. Ben Affleck isn’t an idiot, but when he discusses Islam, he’s a total boob. I would love to discuss environmentalism with him in the same line of ill reason he uses to discuss Islam. “You’re against oil spills? I’m offended! You’re a racist! My uncle works at a gas station and he’s a really swell guy! You are overgeneralizing with your broad stroke opinions about oil spills.” *huffing and puffing* “What? Like we’re so great? We drive CARS!!!! How many tears have you personally put into the ozone layer by driving your fancy rich person cars around? So…what do you want to DO about it? You’re saying we should just hate all people that work with fossil fuels? We should just kill them ALL? Is THAT what you’re saying Ben? You big racist!”

    LOL, I think I’m going to try to win every argument that way from now on. Maybe Rosie O’Donnell will say I should be the next President.

    • Boston Tea Party says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Great summary of his argument, Julia! 🙂 That’s just about the size of it.

    • MacUalraig says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 1:37 am

      Lol… Brilliant!

  28. Champ says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    Maher is right!! ..Affleck, notsomuch 🙁

  29. mortimer says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    SHALLOW, Mr. Affleck. START your higher education by DIFFERENTIATING the DOCTRINES of the Islam from those who merely IDENTIFY with Islam.

    Do you think ordinary Muslims understand Islam? They are shallow about it too. Their UNINFORMED opinions don’t count much.

    The DOCTRINES of Islam were not devised BY VOTE! No, the doctrines are the result of the CONSENSUS of classical, Islamic scholars…before 1111 AD!!!!!

    ISLAM CANNOT CHANGE and ordinary Muslims do not have the right to MAKE UP their OWN version of Islam.

    Do that and the Islamic mafia is supposed to KILL YOU!!!

  30. mortimer says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    MESSAGE TO MR. AFFLECK:

    The more Muslims go to the mosque, the more VIOLENT ARE THEIR OPINIONS!

    The more they learn about Islam, the more Muslims SUPPORT THE CRUEL PUNISHMENT IN SHARIA and VIOLENT JIHAD!!!

    • Tradewinds says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm

      Here’s how I put it: “He/She’s a devout Muslim? Run for your life!!!”

  31. twostellas says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Right? Welcome to our, those on the right, center, or left, who are not “racists” against Muslims, but fight for human rights just the damn same as you do. (even ex muslims!)

    It does take time to wrap the western mind around the threat though. But enou is enough, if you can’t see it now, that’s pretty bad.

    Now they may see how they are shouted down, called names, say they want to kill all Muslims, :/ um really?? Smh now they will see the tactics used to silence in their full splendor, Maher especially, as he is getting dangerous close to affecting many with the truth.

  32. Grayman11b4v says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Did the illustrious gentleman from Charlestown just confuse Ted Bundy with Jeffery Dahmer?

    Bundy was a murderer but not a cannibal and all his victims were female….

    Ben Affleck…your brain is broken.

  33. Thinking From First Principles says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    To Mr. Spencer –

    Sir, you are in a better position than I am to propose this, so let me ask you to consider taking it forward.

    Mr. Maher can most effectively address Mr. Affleck by inviting him back on his show to be the first (or second) signatory to the Call to Ban the Death Penalty for Apostasy and Infidelity as Crime Against Humanity. The text would be simple:

    We hereby declare as crimes against humanity, and call upon the United Nations to declare as crimes against humanity, both the death penalty for apostasy from any religion, and the death penalty for being an infidel in the eyes of any religion. We call upon the United Nations to seek a treaty with enforceable provisions to implement a global ban on the use of the death penalty for either of these where considered an offense under local law.

    We further call for the immediate and unconditional decriminalization of both apostasy and infidelity, and an immediate end to discrimination and harassment on the basis of apostasy and infidelity.

    Let’s see what happens when he is given the opportunity to sign it … especially if Mr. Maher informs him first that signing it will make him a Naji Kafir Harbi whose life is forfeit at the hand of any able bodied Muslim that gets the chance.

    Thank you for your consideration, and keep up the good work.

    Sincerely,

    TFFP

    • Wellington says

      Oct 7, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Interesting proposal. I hope it happens, though if it did I strongly suspect Ben Affleck, deeply ignorant about Islam as he is, would try somehow to weasle out of it. After all, weasles and ignormuses tend to remain weasles and ignoramuses.

    • MacUalraig says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 4:25 am

      I second Wellington.

      Good idea.

    • RKMacUalraig says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 am

      Also, if you also comment at FPM I appreciate your comments.

      Aloha… RKM

  34. gravenimage says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Maher vs. Affleck: Islam “is the only religion that acts like the mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing”
    ………………………………

    Yes—I saw this segment when it first aired on Friday.

    The ironic thing? Large numbers of pious Muslims would gladly kill Ben Affleck for his work on Argo, which he not only starred in but also produced.

    It is hardly perfect—but by current Hollywood standards it is actually quite clear-eyed about the threat of Jihad.

    But Ben Affleck is falling all over himself lest anyone consider him a “racist” or “Islamophobe”.

    While they have a few gaps in their understanding of Islam, as well, it is good to hear from Sam Harris and Bill Maher.

    Certainly, many liberals who would otherwise fall solidly into the knee-jerk Ben Afflack camp of Muslim aplologia may have thought twice after hearing such a bona fide liberal as Maher actually criticize Islam.

  35. bejocy says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    Ben ALMOST quoted it right….”we are endowed by our Cr….’founding fathers’…” 2:08. Changing the words to suit his agenda.

  36. Anon says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    “Say that in 1942, the grandfathers of Maher and Harris were condemning Nazism, and Affleck’s grandfather jumped in to say that not all Germans were like that.”

    That’s a good analogy.

    Even the historically islam-is-good Pew Research Center says that 50% of all Muslims in middle east countries think Sharia Law should be applied TO ALL citizens (800 million people) (leaving out Morocco) and 64% of all Muslims in middle east countries favor the death penalty for leaving Islam (1 billion people) (leaving out Tunisia).

    I mean wow, 800 million and 1 billion, that’s a “tiny” “minority”?

  37. vic says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    Affleck is typical of the idiots that got us where we are today.

  38. King Dave says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    Sam Harris is a better writer than a unprepared speaker.
    His book, The End of Faith, chapter 4 “The Problem with Islam” is one of the best criticisms of Islam I have read.
    Well, second to Robert Spencer

  39. E says

    Oct 7, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    I’m with Sam

    • R. K. MacUalraig says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 8:49 am

      Indeed, E.

      Indeed.

  40. Veronica jones says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 1:03 am

    Just a question:
    We have Muslims out here that have grown children born here. Can someone tell me why these parents left their muslim countries to come to the free west, but dont assimilate, and stick to their ways? Why come here?
    Is it to bring Sharia to the free world? to convert?

    Ben Affleck, does not know wht he is talking about, he has no idea of the mindset of the muslim…they all follow the Quaran, all of them!

  41. fair_dinkum says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 1:05 am

    the main issue is that Bill Maher continues to tell the truth about islam.

    Mr Dawkins and him make a good pair. both clever men..they know that all they will ever need to do to always win is to narrate what happens on a daily basis.

    like this site.

    well not daily .. say 3 weeks from now, 3 days from now. all they need to do is narrate the horror stories on any given day that they are challenged.
    islam will always come up with ammo against itself.

  42. RodSerling says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 1:50 am

    I did not know much about Ben Affleck before seeing this video. I saw him in Good Will Hunting many years ago (where I thought he did a good job), and in Dogma (which was crap), but I don’t follow Hollywood and don’t watch many fictional movies.

    Anyways, after seeing this video, I’m appalled by Affleck. Where to start? He seems infantile in his lack of composure, childish in unloading his tantrum on the viewers and other guests, and juvenile (“it’s racist, it’s gross!”) and frankly asinine in some of his “arguments” — which are more like a word salad of canned lines from the hard Left and Islam apologists. Aside from spewing a shot-gun spray of false or unsubstantiated accusations and insults, an obviously unhinged and enraged Affleck is only able to grimace, grunt, and sputter. For this, postmodernist leftists and Islamic apologists are cheering him on as though he has won an argument.

    Affleck is dishonest (or has a device in his head that inverts reality), 1. Example (paraphrase):
    Harris and Maher: We are not saying “all Muslims”.
    Affleck: You are saying “all Muslims”.

    Affleck is dishonest, 2. (paraphrase)
    Harris and Maher: We are criticizing ideas, Islam has lots of bad ideas.
    Affleck: That’s racist! You are racist bigots! What you are saying is just like hatred against Blacks or Jews!
    Harris and Maher: No, no, we are criticizing a set of beliefs, not all Muslims…
    Affleck: That’s gross! You’re attacking all Muslims! You’re racist!

    Affleck is ignorant of the subject matter (paraphrase):
    Affleck: The vast majority of Muslims don’t agree with harsh sharia.
    Fact: Polls show the majority of Muslims worldwide want sharia, including harsh punishments. Only a tiny minority worldwide (less than 10% overall on average in surveys) strongly disagree with sharia.
    Fact: In major elections in the past approximately 10 years, Muslims have elected Islamist leaders.
    Fact: Islamic law, Islamic leaders in the Muslim world, draw upon the Qur’an and hadiths in their rulings and policies, including harsh punishments for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, etc. –the same or similar to ISIS.

    Affleck mindlessly repeats lies without looking at the facts (paraphrase):
    Affleck: We’ve (the U.S., or perhaps the West generally) killed more of them (Muslims) than they have of us.
    Response:
    1. Historically, Muslims have killed probably over a hundred million non-Muslims through jihad and slavery. Some estimate as many as 270 million non-Muslims were killed by Muslims prior to the 20th century. In comparison, the number of Muslims killed by non-Muslims in the entire history of Islam is probably a small fraction of that.

    2. More recently, in the most recent military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan–which Affleck may have been referring to–most of the conflict-related deaths of Muslims including civilians were caused by Muslim militants, not by U.S. and coalition forces. Of course, to people like Affleck, Greenwald, et al., the U.S. and allies are responsible for the whole death toll.

    3. In any case, the premise that the side in a conflict that kills more people is therefore more evil or morally culpable is not a sound premise, because there are other factors to consider. If nation A manages to fend off unjustified aggressive attacks from nation B, with the result that more soldiers from B are killed than in A, which side has the moral high ground? Clearly, body count alone is not a sound way to morally evaluate two sides in a conflict.

    4. Neither Maher nor Harris advocated the invasion of Iraq (2003). Yet Affleck talks as though Maher and Harris advocated the invasion. Neither Maher nor Harris advocated a method of warfare that results in high numbers of civilian deaths and injuries, etc. Again, Affleck complains as though Maher and Harris, in criticizing Islam, are responsible for advocating war in which large numbers of civilians are killed, when in reality they don’t.

    Apart from the deaths caused by the U.S. and allies, Affleck has nothing to say about human rights, the human rights of the non-Muslims, Muslims, and ex-Muslims and dissidents in Muslim societies throughout the world. He complains about Maher and Harris criticizing Islam, yet their criticism is intended in the direction of supporting human rights, freedom, and equality of all people.

    Overall, though, I’m glad Maher and Harris have “induced the convulsions,” so to speak (I’m taking a line from Hugh Fitzgerald here), and remained calm during the ensuing tantrum/display, even if they hadn’t realized beforehand that Affleck was an Islam apologist of sorts. Affleck may have impressed a lot of leftists and made himself useful to Islam propagandists in the media, but beyond that I think he has probably alienated the majority of intelligent fair-minded people who do have legitimate concerns about Islam.

    • Chrissie07 says

      Oct 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm

      thanks for that very detailed analysis.

    • I forgot says

      Oct 9, 2014 at 9:53 pm

      Robert Spencer: Do you have any comment on today’s NYTimes Kristof column which essentially reiterates the mainstream Islam -shouldn’t- be -judged- by- extremists argument? It would be interesting to see if NYTimes publishes your response.

      • Tallulah says

        Oct 10, 2014 at 12:01 am

        So are these Muslims actually “extremists” claiming to not be extremists? Or are they telling the truth?

        http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2

        If they’re telling the truth, that still does not mean that there aren’t a good number of nominal Muslims who ditch the stuff they find inhumane and still call themselves Muslims. But it does mean that there are a whole lot more Muslims who embrace the whole package that Mohammad presented and who want – in one way or another, whether by war or by stealth – to bring sharia law to the world. Sharia law, in all its harshness, it’s stoning, it’s murder of apostates.

  43. dumbledoresarmy says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 2:04 am

    Four items that might now profitably be sent to Mr Maher by his American viewers, to – one hopes – provide him with additional food for thought, and possibly inspiration and ammunition.

    (Any person here present who has *not* read these four items, should click on the link and read them, for they are witty, well-written, and classics of their kind).

    1/ Fern Saltzman’s hilarious “Are YOu an Islamophobe?” pop quiz.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/26/are-you-an-islamophobe/

    PHYLLIS CHESLER: CHESLER CHRONICLES
    August 26th, 2009 10:17 am
    Are You An Islamophobe?
    Take This Test To Be Sure

    2/ Mark Goldblatt’s article “The Poet Vs the Prophet: Standing up to Totalitarian Islam”, which appeared in “Reason” in May 2010 .

    Excerpt, to give an idea of the flavour, and why I think it might strike a chord with Maher:

    ” (story about New York poet, Allen Ginsberg)
    “…the gist of the story was as follows: Soon after news of the fatwa broke, Ginsberg and his assistant climbed into the back seat of a taxi in Manhattan.
    “After a glance at the cab driver’s name, Ginsberg politely inquired if he was a Muslim.
    “When the cabbie replied that he was, Ginsberg asked him what he thought about the death sentence on Rushdie.
    “The cabbie answered that he thought that Rushdie’s book was disrespectful of Islam, and that the Ayatollah had every right to do what he had done.
    “At this point, according to his assistant, Ginsberg, one of the gentlest men ever to walk the planet, flew into a rage, screaming at the cabbie as he continued to drive, “Then I shit on your religion! Do you hear me? I shit on Islam! I shit on Muhammad! Do you hear? I shit on Muhammad!”
    “Ginsberg demanded that the cabbie pull over.
    “The cabbie complied, and, without paying the fare, Ginsberg and his assistant climbed out. He was still screaming at the cabbie as the car drove off..

    “I’ve had a couple of weeks now to think about Ginsberg cursing out that cabbie, and cursing out Islam and Muhammad.

    “You see, I live in Manhattan, three blocks from Times Square.

    “As near as I can determine, I was walking with a friend about thirty feet from the car bomb on May 1st right around the time it was supposed to detonate.
    “Except for the technical incompetence of a Muslim dirtbag named Faisal Shahzad, I and my friend would likely be dead now.
    “Note the phrase: “Muslim dirtbag.” Neither term by itself accounts for the terrorist act he attempted to perpetrate; both terms, however, are equally complicit in it. It might have been a crapshoot of nature and nurture that wrought a specimen like Shahzad, but it was Islam that inspired him, that gave his fecal stain of a life its depth and its justification. Why is that so difficult to admit?…

    “Let me ask the question another way: Where’s the rage?

    “Why won’t anyone say in public what Ginsberg said in the back seat of that cab? If Islam justifies, or is understood by millions of Muslims to justify, setting off a bomb in Times Square, then I shit on Islam…

    “Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam.
    “Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough.
    “But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”

    3/ The redoubtable Conor Cruise O’Brien, Irish intellectual and atheist, discussing the Salman Rushdie fatwa.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/islam-back-to-the-dark-ages-we-should-not-repeal-the-enlightenment-to-appease-ayatollahs-says-conor-cruise-obrien-1382946.html

    Islam: back to the Dark Ages: We should not repeal the Enlightenment to appease Ayatollahs, says Conor Cruise O’Brien

    CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN

    FRIDAY 12 AUGUST 1994.

    AND (demolishing the “moderate vs fundamentalist” meme in his first paragraph, btw)

    4/ Conor Cruise O’ Brien, discussing Islam, and Jihad, in 1995, when the civil war between Real Muslims and Somewhat-Lax Muslims was raging in Algeria.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html

    CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN
    Friday 6 January 1995
    The lesson of Algeria: Islam is indivisible

    That opening paragraph, which says everything that needs to be said:

    “Fundamentalist Islam” is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous way.

    “It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran.
    “There isn’t.
    “Islam is a universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion over all humanity; that is God’s (sic: allah’s – dda) will.
    “The actual state of affairs, with unbelievers of various sorts dominating most of the world, is a suspension of God’s will and a scandal to the faithful. The world is divided between the House of Islam and the House of War, meaning the rest of us….”.

    If you have never read it, click on the link now and read the rest of it. Conor Cruise O’Brien’s truthtelling is downright exhilarating.

    Imagine if someone like Maher were, on their platform, in the hearing of millions, to simply…read aloud Conor Cruise O’Brien, and encourage listeners to use their commonsense.

  44. Anon says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 3:10 am

    Ben Affleck’s claim that ‘ISIS couldn’t fill a Double A ballpark’ in West Virginia, fact-checked.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/07/ben-affleck/ben-afflecks-claim-isis-couldnt-fill-double-ball-p/

  45. VictorMc says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 4:39 am

    Islam is NOT a religion it is a nasty violent pernicious cult.
    No real religions behave like them.

  46. RodSerling says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 am

    Sam Harris writes in detail about the incident with Affleck in the Maher show segment, and the after-show conversation.
    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

  47. ber says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 5:14 am

    The word Islamophobia is absurd, A phobia is an irrational fear of something. There is nothing irrational about fearing the apostles of a religion who are beheading, crucifying, torturing and raping their way across the Levant. The leftist mind set will never criticise Islam because it contradicts their blind adherence to multi-culturalism. When it comes to security, Obama, the left and ilk, will put the security of the nation at risk for the cult of the multi-culti and political correctness.

  48. Tallulah says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 10:13 am

    From Spencer’s article: “This false and unwarranted assumption continues to befog the public discourse on this issue, and make politically correct non-thinkers like Affleck assume that there is something wrong with standing against jihad terror.”

    I don’t think this statement is accurate. I didn’t get the impression that Affleck thinks that standing against jihad terror is wrong. He thinks that saying that Islam itself commands jihad, the killing of apostates, etc., means that one is saying that *all* Muslims go along with these ideas.

    The human reality that a religion can demand horrific things, but humans can fudge their beliefs and water down their religion to the point that their practice barely reflects their texts seems to escape him. I think that is why he can’t see what Maher and Harris are actually saying – he’s thinking that if the Islamic texts actually command the terrible things that ISIS and other jihadis are doing, then anyone calling himself a Muslim would have to be alright with violent jihad and all the awful things the texts prescribe.

    Any thoroughgoing Muslim *would* have to be in favour of the jihad. But as we here know, there are Muslims who are *not* thoroughgoing.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Tallulah wrote:

      Any thoroughgoing Muslim *would* have to be in favour of the jihad. But as we here know, there are Muslims who are *not* thoroughgoing.
      ……………………………….

      There is another aspect to this, Tallulah.

      Polls consistently show that Muslims in the West *do* strongly support Jihad.

      But in Islam there is the concept of Jihad being either “Fard Kalifa” or “Fard Ayn”—the former meaning that it is incumbent on the Muslim community (Ummah) as a whole, the second that it is incumbent on every able-bodied Muslim male.

      In the absence of a Caliph—not every Muslim accepts Al Baghdadi as Caliph—all Jihad is considered Fard Kalifa. In any case, while Al Baghdadi has urged Muslims to wage Jihad, he has not actually declared it Fard Ayn.

      So what this means is that you cannot assume that every Muslim who is not currently waging violent Jihad actually rejects it as a concept—many of them simply support it being waged by others.

      For some, this is “moral” support—for others, they also pay “Zakat” to fund violent Jihad. A lot of this is done through Muslim “charities”.

      A few lax Muslims actually do quietly reject Jihad—but many more actually support it, and should be considered poised to wage it themselves. Certainly, we have seen more and more Muslims do just that.

      • Tallulah says

        Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 pm

        Ah, yes, Gravenimage, there’s that.

        One of the difficulties in this whole situation is trying to work out who is a genuinely watered-down, not-sharia, not-really Muslim Muslim, and who’s just a sleeper.

        But I’ve known several Muslims that I’m confident were genuine nominal, secular Muslims. Three of them lived with my husband and I as housemates at different times (all from Turkey). Two called themselves “secular Muslims” and the other one just said “I’m not religious”. And all of their behaviour matched their claims.

        There was a couple of brothers who ran a café that we frequented, whose parents came from Syria. These guys considered themselves Muslims, and yet they served pork products and alcohol. I asked one of them a question about the Koran, and he looked a bit embarrassed and said he’s never read the whole thing. His brother told me at another time that they belonged to a sect that mainstream Muslims would not even consider Muslim.

        Also, there’s the blogger, the Egyptian Sandmonkey, who insists he’s a Muslim, but who supports Israel and Western culture, and hates Sharia.

        I feel pretty confident that those “Muslims” are what they appear to be.

        Then there was the guy who came to inquire about the room we had for rent. Middle Eastern in appearance. When he came to the door, I invited him in and offered him my hand to shake. He declined.

        After the interview, I again offered him my hand. He took it reluctantly… and then went into the bathroom and washed his hands.

        Obviously we didn’t have to turn him down. He never would have wanted to live in a house with a female housemate. I believe he was a serious Muslim.

        The ethical issue is to be just to individuals – to judge them for what they truly are. But with this religion, that can be a very tricky assignment – and getting it wrong can sometimes be disastrous. But sometimes it’s not so hard.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 9, 2014 at 4:03 am

          “But I’ve known several Muslims that I’m confident were genuine nominal, secular Muslims. ”

          Ah well, that settles that! We can all rest easy now! 🙂

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 9, 2014 at 4:04 am

          P.S.: Oh, and Tallulah may want to compare notes with Phillip Jihadski (and all his Jihad Watcher enablers).

        • Joshua says

          Oct 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm

          The issue here is terminology. The term “Muslim” is not an ethnic term, but a religious one (unlike the confusing term “Jewish”). There is no such thing as a “secular Muslim” as they are contradictory terms. You either practice what Mohammed and the Koran teach or you don’t. If you do, you’re a Muslim. If you don’t, you’re not.

          Nominal Muslims cannot speak for their “faith” because they have none- they do not believe it or represent it in word or action. In ANY discussion of the merits and implications of a religion, one must cite the source texts, the lives and examples of its “holy figures” and the historical orthodoxy of that faith. Any person who can therefore be categorically labelled as a nominal __________, is not a _________ at all and should not be used as a case study or example of that particular faith.

        • Tallulah says

          Oct 10, 2014 at 9:09 pm

          Joshua said: “The issue here is terminology. The term “Muslim” is not an ethnic term, but a religious one (unlike the confusing term “Jewish”). There is no such thing as a “secular Muslim” as they are contradictory terms. You either practice what Mohammed and the Koran teach or you don’t. If you do, you’re a Muslim. If you don’t, you’re not.”

          Yes, of course, Joshua. I know that.

          But the fact is that some portion of those who call themselves “Muslim” (and note in my post above that I refer to these “Muslims” with scare quotes around them) are not in any meaningful way Muslims. They, themselves, call themselves “secular Muslims” (as our Turk housemates did), and seem to think of Islam as an ethnic of cultural identifier that doesn’t have to be religious.

          Of course they can’t speak for the religion. In many cases they haven’t even read the texts. They’ve dropped all the nasty stuff out of the religion (if they’ve even read enough to know about the nasty stuff) – in a couple of cases in my experience, when I confronted scare-quoted Muslims (these two were young and carefree Turks, about 10 years ago) with nasty hadiths the reply was “Well, that was back when everybody was like that, and you had to fight in order to be able to practice a new religion. But today everybody’s free to follow their own religion. So there’s no need to fight.” They have Disneyfied Islam in their own minds.

          The point being that the fact that someone identifies himself as a Muslim does not mean he believes or thinks like the real thing.

          The problem is that many non-Muslim people, perhaps people like Ben Affleck, are more likely to get to know “Muslims” than Muslims, because the Muslims are less likely to let you get to know them.

          And so the “Muslims”, who may be friendly and fun and non-bigoted toward non-Muslims, and not at all religious, get mistaken for Muslims by non-Islam-savvy kafirs. And people like Affleck think that when people like Maher and Harris condemn Islam, they’re including these nice “Muslims” in that condemnation.

          But they’re not.

  49. Altar boy says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Below is a comment I posted at Bill Maher’s and Sam Harris’ FACEBOOK site

    Unfortunately, Ben Affleck accused both Mr. Harris, and Mr. Maher, of racism—a terrible accusation, that is simply, not true. I wish you and Bill had responded to Mr. Affleck by pointing out that Muslims are not a race, just as Christians are not a race, just as Buddhists are not a race.

    (I sent a similar posting to Ben Affleck’s Facebook—but, now appears to have been removed from Mr. Affleck’s Facebook page–unsurprisingly).

    Once again, I want to thank you, and Mr. Harris, for asking liberals why they don’t stand up and criticize the many sexist, homophobic, and bigoted beliefs and behaviours practised by many Muslims.

    “Being Muslim” is not same as “being White”, or “Black” or, “Chinese.” Practising a religion does not make you a member of a race (why is this not obvious?)

    Free speech is the bedrock of all free societies. Where free speech is assaulted, tyranny grows (Russia and China being current examples).

    “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech”.

    So why do Liberals support abridging freedom of speech for Islam? Why do liberals like, Ben Affleck, shout , “It’s gross and racist. It’s like saying, ‘Oh, you shifty Jew!’ Your argument is, ‘You know, black people, they shoot each other.”

    Muslims are not a race! They are followers of a religion, that Ben Affleck apparently believes should be exempt from criticism? Possibly, because Mr. Affleck blindly assumes that vast majority of Muslims don’t believe in killing a person for adultery? or, killing a person for leaving Islam?

    But the Pew Research polling of Muslim attitudes and beliefs from around the world shows otherwise.

    http://www.pewforum.org/…/the-worlds-muslims-religion…/

    No political or religious belief should be exempt from criticism.

    Free speech is worthless if you are not allowed to “hurt the feelings” of Christians or Hindus or Republicans, by criticising their beliefs. The same goes for Islam.

    For millions of Muslims, drawing a cartoon of Mohammed “hurt their feelings.” And, unfortunately, millions of Muslims, believe that hurt feelings require the cartoonist be killed, simply because he exercised free speech .

    Sorry Mr. Affleck, I think everyone should be free to criticize any and all religions, including Islam (for example, from the Quran, “ When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks…” (Qur’an 47:4). This is what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq, right now. They’re following the Qur’an, and what Mohammed, himself, did 1,400 years ago, cutting off infidel heads, see Sira, p463-4).

    I know Ben Affleck is probably a very nice, well-meaning guy. And I suspect, he would agree that: “it’s not ‘racist’ to criticize a religion that orders its followers to behead unbelievers.” I least I hope so.

    Mr. Affleck needs to review the Pew Research results. For instance, in Egypt (home of Al Azhar University, considered to be the center of Sunni Muslim belief), surveys show 86% of Egyptian Muslims believe those that leave Islam of should be killed. Similarly, 81% of Muslim Egyptians also believe the adulterers should be stoned to death. And, in apparently in moderate Malaysia, 60% of Muslims believe in stoning for adultery, and in Nicholas Kristof’s “moderate” Indonesia, 48 % believe in stoning for adultery.

    These are not small numbers, these are hundreds millions of people.

    And, as Bill Maher pointed put, THAT KILLING SOMEONE FOR ELOPING WITH THE WRONG PERSON IS PUNISHABLE BY STONING, IS NEVER “OK” (FYI, IN SOME MUSLIM COUNTRIES, ADULTERY FOR A WOMAN, INCLUDES HER BEING RAPED!!).

    Is this not worth criticizing? Is it racist or “Islamophobic” to criticize these beliefs and behaviours?

    (I don’t blame Mr. Affleck, for being confused, there’s so much contradictory information, perpetrated by misinformers, such as Reza Aslan).

    Sadly, Mr. Affleck is typical of so many people who have no idea of what the Pew Research polling says about what the average Muslim actually believes, let alone what is actually said in the Qur’an. Or, what has actually occurred throughout the history of Islam (usually portrayed as “enlightened”–ask Armenians about that ).

    Like Nicholas Kristof, I know many Muslims, and we all know there are many modern-thinking secular Muslims in North America and Europe (and, in fact, I live with one right now).

    I have met and spoken to Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji , Takek Fatah, among many other high-profile progressive Muslims.

    Hirsi Ali has left Islam, but many others continue to say they are “Muslims”, which gives the false impression, that because there are some “progressive” Muslims, “Islam has a been reformed somehow,” at least in their minds.

    But Islam hasn’t been reformed, and those who try are often killed, as was the reformist Islamic scholar, Muhammad Shakil Auj ( killed last month).

    http://www.nytimes.com/…/pakistan-shakil-auj…

    I often wonder why so few liberal Muslims don’t just leave Islam, like Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq?

    I doubt Irshad Manji would follow the commandment to cut unbelievers heads off? She is openly lesbian (a death penalty in most Muslim countries). In what way is Ms. Manji a Muslim?

    Has, Ms. Manji, or her liberal Muslim friends studied the Qur’an or studied what Mohammad actually did during his lifetime? Are they “OK” with the Prophet — when in his fifties–having sex with his nine-year-old wife, Aisha?

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

    Hirsi Ali called Mohammed a “Pedophile” on 60 Minutes. That’s brave.

    In Islam, everything the Prophet did is the “best example” of what a Muslim man can be. Is pedophilia not to be criticized because a Muslim man has sex with a child? after all, he would simply be imitating Mohammed.

    Why do secular or moderate Muslims continue to call themselves “Muslims”, when by behaviour and belief, they clearly are not? (and, FYI, most other Muslims don’t believe they’re Muslims, either).

    Myself, and millions of others have left the religion, that as children we were brainwashed into? I no longer call myself a Catholic or a Christian. Why don’t more Muslims do the same and simply leave the faith

    Oh ! I forgot it could get you killed.

    Thanks again to you Bill Maher and Sam Harris. Finally someone else out there as brave as Hirsi Ali.

  50. Petey says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Does Ben Affleck even know hes got a Fatwa on his head? Does the dumb shit know his life is in danger? For merely producing a movie? These Hollywood types are too arrogant! I say put your money where your mouth is! Go there, then we’ll watch your best performance. And the Oscar for the most gruesome beheading goes to….drum roll…. BEN AFFLECK….accepting the award for the late Ben Affleck is his next of kin…cue the sappy music

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 8, 2014 at 6:48 pm

      Very important point, Petey.

      I wish someone on the panel had thought to tell Mr. Affleck that he is on the Muslim hit lit for having dared to produce and star in the movie “Argo”.

      Despite Ben Affleck’s willful cluelessness, “Argo” is actually pretty clear-eyed about Islamic savagery—by the standards of today’s Hollywood, at least—and is well worth watching.

      • Tallulah says

        Oct 8, 2014 at 7:58 pm

        Ah, but I imagine Mr. Affleck would simply counter that the Muslims who have condemned him to death do not represent the real Islam, or at least the only Islam, and that we shouldn’t smear all Muslims with the actions of the ones who have condemned him. (I agree we shouldn’t smear all Muslims, shouldn’t lump them all together as if they’re all equally… Muslim.)

        I don’t think you’d change his mind about anything by pointing out this nasty fact. He knows there are monstrous Muslims. He just doesn’t think we should say that the monstrousness is inherent in the religion itself. Because I think in his mind that would mean all Muslims have to be monsters – missing the fact that people can be very lax or very rationalizing about their religion, accommodating their own more humane consciences by fuzzing out or explaining away, or just ignoring, objectionable material.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 9, 2014 at 4:25 am

          Well Tallulah, welcome to the Asymptotic Wing of the Counter-Jihad: I think you’ll find the amenities quite appealing and the venue spacious, and the membership quite thriving, comprised of a sizable minority, if not a positive majority, of the Jihad Watchers here (some of them don’t admit straight out that they’re asymptotic, but actually pretend they’re not in certain circumstances — but then, that’s precisely why they’re asymptotic).

  51. Uncle Vladdi says

    Oct 8, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    “Not all nazis killed Jews, in fact, most of them didn’t work at the camps at all!”

    Yes, back in the day, most leftists would have had some “Good Nazi Friends” which anecdotal tales would somehow “prove” national socialism wasn’t a threat to anyone at all, any where, ever.

  52. Ranga says

    Oct 9, 2014 at 11:26 am

    I don’t know if Affleck’s carrier is active, but, if so, he might be doing this for commercial reasons too – because, actors in India do this all the time.

  53. Elwin Daniels says

    Oct 10, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    Interestingly, Ben Affleck came out VERY anti Sarah Palin a few years back on the grounds of her Christianity.

    Many of these liberal left political people are soft on Islam because they hate Christianity so much and are glad to see Christianity being demoted from ‘most favoured religion’ status. Good to see a few of the Dawkinist atheists (sadly very few so far) waking up to the fact that all religions are not the same. The secret (Google Andrew Neather) British Labour party policy of encouraging mass Muslim immigration in order to force through a multicutural agenda is not working very well.

    • Tallulah says

      Oct 10, 2014 at 7:34 pm

      How much of this knee-jerk crying of “racism” has to do with a person’s dread of being labelled a racist himself if he dares to give a public thought to the possibility that some religions or cultures (not actual races, since race has nothing to do with what a person believes) are actually better than others? More moral, more respectful of individual rights?

      How much of the threat to our liberty, caused by multiculturalist blindness, is really about some people’s terror of being one of those outcasts from the “liberal” in-group (especially in Hollywood) who get an ugly, if unjust, label slapped on them? How much is pure social cowardice that places others’ opinions of oneself above one’s dedication to truth and one’s own integrity?

    • Tallulah says

      Oct 10, 2014 at 8:11 pm

      My husband often makes the observation that vague thinking, poor definition of one’s terms, sloppy identifications, are the friends of tyranny.

      Terms like “hate” and “racism” and “bigotry” are used in such a fuzzy, sloppy way today that people who believe in equal rights under the law for all individuals, regardless of race or gender or ethnic or religious background, people who insist on maintaining true liberal (individual rights, liberty) values for all, are called “haters”, “racists”, and “bigots”.

      But “hate” means that you have such animus towards someone (or something) that you want them utterly destroyed. “Racism” is judging a person not on the content of his or her character, but on the irrelevant fact of race. And “bigotry” is (according to Dictionary.com) “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

      Those who want to defend the rights of all human beings to individual liberty, regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnic background, are not haters or racists or bigots. Those who want to keep their country free are not racists, haters, or bigots.

      And *recognizing* that some creeds/religions are hostile to individual liberty and aim to destroy it, and that welcoming in large numbers of adherents of those creeds/religions is not to the interest of maintaining that liberty is *not* hateful, racist, or bigoted. It is, in fact, necessary to maintaining a society that is the least hateful, racist, and bigoted possible in a world that has always had plenty of all three. (And Islam, while it accepts people of all races and nationalities, is as bigoted (intolerant) as it gets against religions that aren’t Islam. And a religion that prescribes death for apostasy, adultery, and homosexuality and has many adherents who still accept that prescription, is a deathly intolerant creed.)

      Allowing the concepts of “hate”, “racism” and “bigotry” to become fuzzy enough to apply to defenders of “liberty for all” is to stupidly work for the interests of those who want to undermine that liberty.

  54. Dennis Trisker says

    Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Good for Harris and Maher. I am an agnostic myself and am proud to say many of us un-believers see the reality of Middle Eastern, and western Islam.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • gravenimage on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Infidel on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.