[Via PJ Media]
The value of actor Ben Affleck’s recent outbursts in defense of Islam on HBO’s Real Time is that here, in one 10-minute segment, we have all the leftist/liberal bromides used whenever Islam is criticized.
In what follows, Affleck’s main arguments are presented and then discredited.
Relativism and the Islamic Heterogeneity Myth
At the start, when author Sam Harris began making some critical remarks concerning Islam, a visibly agitated Affleck interrupted him by somewhat sarcastically asking, “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You’re the interpreter of that?”
Affleck was essentially arguing that really no one is qualified to say what is or is not Islamic, since all Muslims are free to interpret Islam anyway they want. This notion has less to do with how Islam is practiced and more to do with Western relativism, specifically the postmodern belief that there are no “truths,” that everything is open to individual expression. Thus even if an Islamic sheikh from Al Azhar University were to tell Affleck that the criticism leveled against Islam were true, the actor would no doubt reply, “Fine, that’s your opinion, but I know that most other Muslims disagree.”
The fundamental mistake in this position is that it places Muslims on a higher pedestal of authority than Islam itself (even though muslims are by definition “one’s who submit” to islam, which is “submission” to Allah’s laws). Islam is based on the law, or Sharia — “the way” prescribed by Allah and his prophet. And Sharia most certainly does call for any number of things — subjugation of women and religious minorities, war on “infidels” and the enslavement of their women and children, bans on free speech and apostasy — that even Affleck would normally condemn.
In short, Sunni Islam, which approximately 90% of all Muslims follow, is far from heterogeneous. It has only four recognized schools of jurisprudence, and these agree over the basics, with only minor differences over detail. Even in the other 10% of Islamic sects, most of which are Shia or Shia offshoots, one finds that when it comes to intolerant aspects, they too are in agreement. For example, while all Islamic schools of law prescribe the death penalty for leaving Islam, some argue that female apostates should “only” be imprisoned and beat until they embrace Islam again.
The ‘Racism’ Card
When Bill Maher, the host of Real Time, asked “But why can’t we talk about this [Islamic issues]?” Affleck shot back with, “Because it’s gross, it’s racist.”
This meme is as common as it is absurd and does not deserve much rebuttal. Suffice to say that Muslims are not a race. There are Muslims of all nations, races, ethnicities — from sub-Saharan Africans to blonde haired, blue-eyed Europeans. Yet many apologists for Islam, including congressmen and congresswomen, habitually rely on this lie — I won’t even deign to call it an “apologetic” — simply because accusing someone of being “racist,” in this case, critics of Islam, is one of the surest way of shutting them up.
Conflating Muslim Teachings with Muslim People
At one point, after the other speakers made certain statistical points, Affleck made the following outburst, to much applause: “How about the more than a billion people [Muslims], who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punish women, who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.”… Keep reading
PRCS says
White Chechen shaheed;
Does dear Ben even know about the TWO wars in Chechnya 20 years ago, or what “race” most of that area’s jihadists are?
jihad3tracker says
WATCH BEN AFFLECK’S FACE AND HANDS FROM 6:00 MINUTES ON IN THE VIDEO CLIP.
COULD THAT “BODY LANGUAGE” BE TRUTH SINKING IN TO A PRIVILEGE-GUILT MIND ? ? ?
Keith says
I doubt it, he will still be claiming Islam is the religion of peace and how it is misunderstood by nasty western critics especially christians when he is starring in his own blockbuster about jihadis beheading people.
jsteves2000 says
Just another actor to put on my no watch movie list what a dumb nut. If actors keep on making stupid statements won’t be long I won’t have any movies to watch (NOT HARDLY ANY TO WATCH ANYWAY)unless I go back 50 years of old movies.
Jaladhi says
Such persons are called totally stupid people. They support Muslims for no reason other than their liberal PC god tells them to do it at their own peril!! Look at the world history of Muslims and learn from it. Just because they live in the West doesn’t mean they have adopted our culture and values. They have no allegiance to any country they live in – their only allegiance is to Islam and Mo/allah. They are not your friends and if the time comes they won’t hesitate to separate your head from your shoulders. This is their history – there is no billions of peaceful Muslims as the people like Afflac imagine!! they are all ISIS!!
mortimer says
The post-modern stupidity Ben Affleck exhibits (along with most journalists) is ISLAM-A-LA-CARTE.
These leftist progressives truly think that Muslims can simply MAKE UP THEIR OWN VERSION OF ISLAM and that the Salafist Death Cult is a fringe EXTREME GROUP with “NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL ISLAM”.
They erroneously believe that SALAFISM is similar to the KKK or Nazis and therefore, we needn’t worry about them.
Ben Affleck and other leftist progressives are truly DEVOID of any understanding of the ISLAMIC ACCREDITATION SYSTEM that works through CONSENSUS. There needn’t be a pope in Islam to rule, because TOGETHER the mullahs are the pope. Any mullah who is a heretic may be murdered simply by writing a fatwa to that effect, so mullahs generally do not step out of line and if they disagree with the consensus, they keep quiet about it.
The complexity of the ISLAMIC SYSTEM keeps LAZY BONES like Ben Affleck from learning ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT ISLAM.
Ben Affleck is an opinionated stuffed shirt and EMPTY VESSEL with regard to Islam.
mortimer says
Affleck’s intellectual shallowness and know-it-all attitude combine with his facile morality: “If you disagree with me on an ideological subject, then you are a gross racist.”
What’s that? Racist? Gross? (Is this a teenage girl talking?)
Well, if we had three ex-Muslims…brown, yellow and black…all criticizing the DOCTRINES OF ISLAM, I suppose their criticisms of Islam would be called ‘racist’ as well. Or would he not dare say that to an Asian ex-Muslim?
The ‘racist’ accusation is the last resort of leftards like Affleck who have run out of arguments or never even had an argument in the first place. He just has name-calling. Ho hum.
And ‘gross’ only means ‘I don’t like that’ or ‘I think that is poopy’, rather than being a thoughtful argument. Affleck says a billion Muslims oppose violence…wrong…most support violence…jihad…for Allah.
As for this argument that one billion Muslims aren’t violent…I counter that America’s approximately 2 million military personnel may be the only Americans who commit ‘violence’ in the name of the country, but the other 99% of the population supports them. Does that mean Muslims or Americans are pacifists when they are not in the MILITARY? By no means.
Similarly, half a million violent jihadists are supported by Muslims who realize fighting for Islam is the highest deed in Islam.
Affleck’s smug righteousness is based on the laughable assumption that Islam is a race.
Such non-argument is typical of a generation drowned in moral relativism, post-modern narcissism and the inability to coherently understand and discuss ideas without resorting to calling names.
Affleck should read a book or two about jihad and then return to the late night sofa for an exam to see if learned anything.
Still, if Affleck were to read 10 of the latest, best books on jihad by the greatest contemporary historians, he would even then say: “That’s only THEIR opinion.”
RCCA says
The really sad thing about Affleck is that he is not “just a simple actor so what do you expect?” — he’s actually a very smart guy. Remember that movie “Good Will Hunting” where he played the dumb union worker and his friend Matt Damon played the math genius? Affleck and Damon wrote the screenplay and it launched their careers into super stardom. “Good Will Hunting received almost universal critical acclaim and was a financial success. It grossed over US$225 million during its theatrical run with only a modest $10 million budget. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards, including the Academy Award for Best Picture, and won two: Best Supporting Actor for Williams and Best Original Screenplay for Affleck and Damon.” wiki
Affleck had the same exact emotional reaction as a dear friend of mine, who is also an extremely smart guy, when I was discussing the issue of what the Qur’an actually teaches and how it is the source of violence by Muslims. All my friend heard, according to him, was me attacking “all Muslims.” He accused me of bigotry. No matter how many times I explained I was not discussing all Muslims it didn’t matter. My friend got just as vexed and emotional as Affleck.
Why this insistence on defending Muslims and refusal to examine the actual texts of Islam? Some kind of fear that Muslims will be harmed?
My friend explained that Muslims have been treated awfully since 9-11 and cited all that hate crime they’ve experienced. When I explained that isn’t corroborated by the FBI hate crime statistics, that in fact hate crimes against Muslims is minuscule compared to crimes against blacks, gays, and Jews, my friend really didn’t want to believe me.
As if I want to see violence towards anyone. Hardly.
umbra says
writing a screenplay for a movie does not necessarily indicate intelligence (clear logical reasoning and comprehension) on the part of affleck, it merely shows that he has some creativity capacity. As such, he employed his creativity in his arguments rather than facts.
RCCA says
Yeah, any old dumb fool can write and produce a million dollar movie. Just use a little “creativity” — dumb stuff.
BTW, how creative are you? Write and produce any million dollar movies lately?
Western Canadian says
Good will hunting was so pathetically self indulgent and contrived, that I could barely stomach watching it….. Erecting straw men (non leftist variety of course) for the sole purpose of knocking them down, portraying oneself as brilliant when demonstrating a level of ignorance that is beyond shameful, had leftists in the media and entertainment jumping on board, as it gave an appearance of support for their own bigotry… the same bigotry that was the purpose and message of this utterly pathetic film….. It was given unearned and undeserved praise, because it celebrated leftist ignorance and bigotry.
Will says
Exactly..I watched it once and have not been able to stomach its brandished arrogance since. The character played by Matt Damon thinks that “genius” makes psychopathic behaviour acceptable. The premise that an untrained maths genius can just “pop up” might have been true when that Indian child did it in the last cebtury but not now. Too many years of maths study required
Wolfgang says
Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg Speilberg and dozens of others of his kind including this man are against the US 2nd Amendment rights to own a firearm , do not ever forget that, this man who people think is intelligent and idolize [ I call him gifted yes, smart as in rat cunning ] is not an intelligent rational thinker , he is both irrational and typical of socialist style thinking in Hollywood circles, many others like him who wield great power and influence would happily sell your rights to free speech down the river to an all powerful cabal of Oligarchs if they could .
I do not and will not support by paying money to see films these people make who are left wingers with a socialist agenda.
from my language to yours…..
” Auch der kleinste Feind ist nicht zu verachten ”
In English its translates to ……..” there is no little enemy ”
Affleck is no friend
Don McKellar says
Well, as we have learned a long time ago, Damon is the smarter of the two and likely wrote the best of the screenplay — which was, by many accounts, ghost rewritten by William Goldman.
citycat says
Intelligent educated friends have done the same to me. Weird. Anger that i’ve not heard previouly from them.
Jack Gordon says
Actors and actresses live in an artificial world where nothing can be guaranteed to be real. Their personas are creations of PR firms and their exploits mainly a tissue of lies and half-truths. They are overpaid and wildly over praised. Why do we bother with what these camera dolts say or think? Unlike Shakespeare who could both act and think, they can only do the former, a rather shallow talent when you think about it a little. It is depressing to see audiences politely considering their ignorant opinions as if they were valuable, even audiences like the UN (I’m thinking of the Harry Potter character — can’t remember her name — who recently lectured that body on something — forget what exactly.) The only serious response to people like this Affleck fellow is to tell them to go soak their heads in one of their $10,000 toilets.
Judi says
I think the exception to the rule is Jon Voight. He tells it like it is. Google his many speeches on Obola and Israel. He is a true American.
voegelinian says
“…Affleck made the following outburst, to much applause: “How about the more than a billion people [Muslims], who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punish women, who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day…”
Allah help us, another category of Muslims to think about: The Muslims Who Wanna Have Some Sandwiches. 🙂
Jay Boo says
Affleck is trying to claim that all anti-jihad arguments are driven by
those promoting the ( all Muslim People are the same) meme.
I wonder where he would get such a distorted idea, voegelinian ?
voegelinian says
I don’t say all Muslims are the same. Nice try.
voegelinian says
Phillip Jihadski (PJ) wrote:
Voegelinian, when confronted with his own Pathology:
“I don’t say all Muslims are the same. Nice try.”
Nonsense! Sure you do, as in “The only solution is Total Deportation of all Muslims!”
To advocate a comprehensive solution for a problem involving an aggregate is not the same thing as positively asserting that all members of that aggregate are the same. For example, when the FDA is alerted of possible food contamination of beef in just one or more supermarkets of a supermarket chain, they routinely will treat all beef in the store (both out for sale and being stored and prepared for sale) as though it were tainted, even though theoretically it’s likely that not all of the beef is affected. The logic here, of course, is that the inability to know, in a timely and reasonably feasible manner, which beef is tainted and which is safe, forces the action of a generalized interdiction, because of the overriding concern for public safety.
“This, of course – this bizarre, illogical, seditious and unconstitutional ‘solution’ – is falsely premised upon the notion that all Muslims can be easily identified by their dress, color of skin, language, habits, etc.”
It may be falsely premised on that notion; or it may not be. I don’t recall ever saying the identification of all Muslims will be easy. There is lurking in PJ’s objection the implication of a false dilemma or choice, between deportation as Easy or Impossible — as though important projects cannot be somewhere in between, and be reasonbly doable. To apodictically assume that they cannot be somewhere in between (because of the lack of “absolute precision”, as though that is the only precision that works — see quote below) is an irrational assumption, or at best requires a solid argument to back up, not a mere assertion or implication.
“…despite the fact that it is impossible for anyone to identify with absolute precision, any subcategory of humans.”
“Anyway, if they’re NOT all the same, as you imply in your particular weasely manner, perhaps you could give us a list of how you differentiate between all those ‘different kinds of Muslims’.”
My list of the wondrous diversity that illustrates how Muslims are not all the same would be no more relevant or useful to our concern for public safety than anyone else’s list, if we reasonably assume that we cannot tell the difference — with sufficient reliability on a macro scale (the scale on which public safety depends, given the numbers and dispersal of Muslims) — between the harmless Muslims and the dangerous Muslims. Or as Spencer himself put it:
“… a fact that we have pointed out many, many times at Jihad Watch: there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims…”
“… what we have pointed out many times over the years: that there is no reliable way to distinguish between Islamic “extremists” and Islamic “moderates”…”
PJ goes on:
“Let’s see now…maybe I can help you [give us a list of how you differentiate between all those ‘different kinds of Muslims’.”]. Surely there are those Muslims that dress just like I do at work – suit and tie, Bostonians, white skinned – who are often mistaken for Christians…but oh! No…they’re foolish and naïve recent converts to Islam.”
Perhaps at this juncture Ben Affleck could help PJ:
“How about the more than a billion people [Muslims], who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punish women, who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.”…
The only significant difference I can see between PJ and Affleck is that Affleck exempts a higher number of Muslims. Both exemptions, however, suffer from the problem of assuming they can tell the difference which I (and Spencer and all other rational people) conclude is pragmatically impossible.
While there may well be many differences among Muslims in their wondrous diversity, many if not most or all of those differences are not pertinent to our concern for public safety vis-a-vis the dangers stemming from those Muslims who are dangerous.
PJ goes on:
“Or perhaps we could examine that brown-skinned family at breakfast this morning, whom I assumed were Muslim – because the man seemed to be fingering prayer beads before eating. Imagine my surprise when he responded to my query of his religious persuasion; that they were East Indians…Christians, as a matter of fact, from the UK – on holiday – and those prayer beads were a Rosary that his recently departed mother had given him.”
This presumably speaks to factors that are supposed to make a public policy based upon general suspicion of Muslims unfeasible — factors that supposedly would sufficiently impede “the notion that all Muslims can be easily identified by their dress, color of skin, language, habits, etc.”
I have never said the process would be easy or perfect. Are we to conclude that all projects which are not easy or perfect should be rejected out of hand? That seems to be PJ’s logic here. Such logic may be persuasive with regard to a problem that is not fraught with as many dangers (and with as many complex dangers) as is this problem, of Muslims following their Islam; but we would be recklessly remiss in our obligation to protect our societies if we were to put such logic above erring on the side of caution.
PJ goes on:
“Yes, Voeg – you DO think there’s a Muslim in everybody. You DO suspect everybody.”
I don’t know where PJ got that from. Certainly not from a reasonable reading of what I have written here and at my blog over the years.
voegelinian says
In my analogy of FDA recall of beef, I sorely underestimated the results:
“when the FDA is alerted of possible food contamination of beef in just one or more supermarkets of a supermarket chain, they routinely will treat all beef in the store (both out for sale and being stored and prepared for sale) as though it were tainted…”
Not only in one store, but often in the whole chain of the store throughout an entire region, the beef is interdicted until the problem is solved.
Blitz2b says
…. Hey Afleck, make that a Ham and Bakey sandwich and we all will be happy….
What a f***in retard. He knows nothing about Islam yet he has the audacity to question Harris at some point in the video..
‘fleck stick to your stupid career which is acting…. the fool who told you that you had he ability to think, is a bloody liar? Get back to playing your “Reindeer games” now…. Moron!
PRCS says
Yeh, where in Hell did that come from?
rubiconcrest says
I don’t think Ben A. is stupid at all. He just has a hard time wrapping his head around a violent religion that Muslims honestly believe is the word of god. It runs so counter to his belief system that on a gut level he feels it just can’t be a true reflection of tens of millions of Muslims.
voegelinian says
That sums up in a nutshell the view of some 98% of Westerners who insist on defending Islam and/or Muslims.
Why they persist with stubborn perversity in the face of the mountain of data out there then leads us to seek an explanation somewhat more complicated. But it should not baffle us why so many Westerners do this, nor that many relatively intelligent and decent ones among them do so.
(The bafflement that seems to persist among so many in the Counter-Jihad then has moved me to notice an addition problem beyond the Primary Problem (Islam) and the Secondary Problem (Western myopia to the Primary Problem) — a Tertiary Problem: the misapprehension in the Counter-Jihad to the aforementioned two problems. One of the features of this misapprehension is, as I mentioned above, this needless bafflement as to the Secondary Problem (almost as though saying, in frustration, “Why can’t all these people not see what we so plainly see!?”) — an emotion that oftimes can lead to conspiracy-thinking in order to relieve the explanatory pressure of such a pressing problem.)
Jay Boo says
voegelinian said,
“That sums up in a nutshell the view of some 98% of Westerners who insist on defending Islam and/or Muslims. ”
The way that sentence is constructed, it appears at first glance to suggest that 98% of Westerners wish to defend Islam and/or Muslims.
Of those Westerners who actually defend Islam this unreferenced “98%” statistic is most likely derived not from a “mountain of data ” but from a thimble of opinion.
Jay Boo says
It is better to confront Affleck then whine about those of the Counter-Jihad not meeting the voegelinian official stamp of approval.
voegelinian says
Yeah, 98 is an exaggeration. But I’d still say it’s a majority throughout the West who more or less fit rubiconcrest’s description of Affleck’s psychology. Whatever it is, it’s obviously too high.
Blitz2b says
Why should he care? this is what amazes me. Who died and appointed Ben Afleck the spokesman for all of Islam?
A billion point five people are deluded, so Afleck takes it upon himself to correct everyone that not all of them are monsters… the arrogance!
Unless …. unless of course at some point Afleck was considering joining this cult, but then Maher threw the proverbial spanner in the works… Watch his body language, at about 6:00.. clear display of frustration a Muslim would show.
Muslims get a rise out of celebrity “reverts” to Islam. Hey Muslims chalk this looser for your team.
gravenimage says
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Ben Affleck is thinking of converting to Islam.
His reaction is, I’m afraid, all too common in the West, and is mainstream PC.
Kepha says
What a waste of band width, air time, or whatever–Ben A., that is. Why would anyone discuss Islam, radical or otherwise, with him? Is American really so dumbed-down that we think someone has something worthwhile to say on international affairs simply because he’s made some money in show biz?
In the immortal words of Charlie Brown: AAUUUUUUUUGH!
Champ says
The value of actor Ben Affleck’s recent outbursts in defense of Islam on HBO’s Real Time is that here, in one 10-minute segment, we have all the leftist/liberal bromides used whenever Islam is criticized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmm, an actor who’s reading from the “leftist/liberal” script …
Jay Boo says
Actor Ben Affleck is doing what all leftists do best …
— Acting
umbra says
ben affleck has done a Tugg Speedman.
UneasyOne says
Sam Harris is also a prominent leftest. This is the reaction we get from our own side in this debate. The Affleks try to shout us down.
Bezelel says
Ben’s thinking is like a B grade science fiction movie. There’s always some jerk who runs up to the alien space ship trying to make friends until ZAP
Bezelel says
Or Devil’s advocate, take your pick.
Jay Boo says
Twilight Zone ‘TO SERVE MAN’
(The Qur’an is a book of cannibalism)
Alien beings carrying a book arrive on earth uninvited declaring that they come in peace.
They soon begin to convince a skeptical public of their good intentions
with the help of progressive minded culturally enlightened intellectuals.
When one of a staff of US government cryptographers says their ‘book’ title translates to mean ‘TO SERVE MAN’ everyone is relieved and overjoyed and soon all the (leftists) pat themselves on the back as if to say “see we told you so”
Later on to everyone’s horror it is discovered that
‘TO SERVE MAN’ is actually … a COOKBOOK.
Bezelel says
I remember that one. We need Elvira in the State Dept.
Mirren10 says
Robert has used this reference quite a few times !
”Service to Man”
”It’s a cookbook !”
*First* time, if I remember rightly, back in 2009.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/rep-keith-ellison-d-muslim-brotherhood-complains-about-misunderstanders-of-islam-in-us
Cameo Red says
The Muslim race must never be confused with the Nazi race, the Democrat race, or the Chicago race.
Salah says
Raymond wrote:
“But can one say with similar certainty that every single Muslim alive today believes that the apostasy penalty should be upheld? Obviously not. Yet this is not a reflection of Islam; it is a reflection of individual human freedom — a freedom that ironically goes against Islamic teaching.”
Well said, Raymond. Indeed, by rejecting the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamization-of-Egypt plan, Egyptian Muslims did actually (though subtly) go against the teachings of the Qur’an. And THAT is good.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-end-of-muslim-brotherhood.html
mortimer says
Exactly, Salah. Most Egyptians are now counterjihadists.
gravenimage says
I think that’s a bit optimistic, Mortimer.
Here’s a story from just yesterday:
“Egypt: Bomb explodes next to church”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/egypt-bomb-explodes-next-to-church
Here’s are some more:
“Egypt: Muslim mobs prevent Coptic church from constructing services building, even though church has legal permit”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/egypt-muslim-mobs-prevent-coptic-church-from-constructing-services-building-even-though-church-has-legal-permit
“One Year after Morsi’s ouster, looted Coptic churches turn into trash dumps”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/one-year-after-morsis-ouster-looted-coptic-churches-turn-into-trash-dumps
“All educated, professional women are ‘unoriginal and common,’ says Egyptian sheikh”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/07/all-educated-professional-women-are-unoriginal-and-common-says-egyptian-sheikh
“Egypt: Christian gets six years prison for blasphemy”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/egypt-christian-gets-six-years-prison-for-blasphemy
I could, or course, go on—but why bother?
Egypt *is* marginally better now under a military coup than it would be under the fully Islamic Muslim Brotherhood—but it is still 90% Muslim, and much in favor of Shari’ah strictures, oppressing Infidels, and hating Jews, as is every Muslim state.
gravenimage says
“Here’s are” should, of course, have been “Here are”.
Lesley says
Affleck’s misguided anger is coming from a place of compassion for fellow man. I understand the desire to rationalize things so that they make sense to our Western minds. The truth of how dangerous mainstream Islam is to everything civilization has built is so mind-blowing, that some people fabricate any explanation they can to avoid the awful truth. Time marches on, and Affleck and others of his ilk will see the obvious truth. I just hope that all isn’t lost by then :0/
mortimer says
Affleck is unacquainted with the universal DUTY of jihad. All Muslims must participate in the subjugation of the evil kufar. They must do it by the sword, by contributing money for jihad or by word as an apologist spreading disinformation about jihad.
All Muslims understand if they are shirking their duty to conduct jihad.
The fact that many Muslims have heterogenous ideas simply means that they DO NOT KNOW THE DOCTRINES OF ISLAM and are evading many canonical Islamic duties.
J says
The argument that one would need a doctorate in Islamic studies to fully understand what is happening in the world is ridiculous.
Do you need to spend a lifetime studying Christianity and Catholicism to comprehend the horrible sex abuses committed by Catholic priests?
Of course not.
Would you be called a racist or bigot for harshly criticizing those priests that committed those crimes or the hierarchy that protected them?
Of course not.
Would you be attacked, verbally or physically, for expressing these opinions ?
Of course not.
(And I say this as a Catholic albeit not a very good one ,))
Jen says
You wouldn’t need to study Christianity or Catholicism to comprehend the sex abuse by the priests since this kind of behaviour is not permitted anywhere in Christian doctrine. You would just need to study the character of the priests themselves who abused their position of power. The sex abuse scandals are a favourite counter-argument by Muslims to defend Muhammad- don’t let them draw any comparisons! Islam allows for sex abuse in its own scriptures thanks to Muhammad’s example. Nowhere is sex abuse permitted for those following Jesus’ example!
mortimer says
What Affleck needs to learn is that Islam is constitutionally violent because it is supremacist. Only true Muslims understand this and believe it and act on it. The other non-jihadic Muslims are ‘munafiqun’…they are Islamic ‘hypocrites’ who talk and pretend to be Muslims, but do not practice its duties.
Islam is constitutionally violent because Mohammed said: “I was commanded to FIGHT THE PEOPLE UNTIL THEY BECOME MUSLIMS.”
Mohammed is Islam…not the opinions of uninformed Muslims.
Sweetness says
There is the song and the singer. The recipie and the baker. The argument and the debater.
Anon says
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/
Tim says
Well, they’ve filled Syria and Iraq so far and keep spreading…
Maybe Affleck doesn’t know that these countries are far greater in size than double a ballpark…
Anon says
Very true.
AB says
I feel sick.
And I used to think Affleck was the hottest thing on earth.
Not anymore.
What an idiot.
Jay Boo says
Every man’s secret sex-fetish fantasy is to have a subservient woman worship every word he says and be willing to do ‘anything’ for her master just like in the popular TV show ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’.
Even a gay man would turn instantly bisexual if given such an opportunity.
Not that I am suggesting that Ben is gay, gay double gay or ingratiating himself with Muslims to appeal to get a shot at what lies submissively under the Islamic veil.
Bezelel says
Will Smith in the remake of the Wild Wild West would serve him right and probably his preference.
ApolloSpeaks says
STAR OF GONE GIRL
is GONE GUY on Islam.
After producing, directing and staring in the Acadamy Award winning film Argo you’d think he’d know better.
http://www.apollospeaks.com
Geo says
Ben is rubbing his eyes alot , he is soooo sick of people denigrating the beauty of islam , ‘why are they trying to persecute the beautiful muslims?’
He is thinking that he might want to go and live in a muslim country to get away from all these ”islamophobes” , but realized he can’t go without his endless supply of beautiful teenage girls and nose candy, so will put off with the trip and defend the ROP.
Jay Boo says
In reference to “he can’t go without his endless supply of beautiful teenage girls and nose candy” Ben Affleck who has absolutely all anyone could ask for now wants more. That is, to fantasize about something he can’t have as a non-Muslim man, a Muslim woman.
I will give the same reply as I did above with AB
Every man’s secret sex-fetish fantasy is to have a subservient woman worship every word he says and be willing to do ‘anything’ for her master just like in the popular TV show ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’.
Even a gay man would turn instantly bisexual if given such an opportunity.
Not that I am suggesting that Ben is gay, gay double gay or ingratiating himself with Muslims to subconsciously appeal at getting a shot at what lies submissively under the Islamic veil.
gravenimage says
Ben Affleck isn’t defending Muslims because he has a hankering for Muslim women.
He is just doing what all those steeped in “political correctness” do—desperately asserting his bona fides as someone who is not “racist” or “Islamophobic”.
George Romero says
Bens movies are generally crappy , never liked them :)He’s full of sh;t
duh_swami says
Bottom line…Never trust anyone who believes Allah is God…
Apologists have lots of opinions, but few facts. And the last thing they want is facts because that destroys their opinions.
I have a few opinions about Islam and Comp, but mostly I rely on facts. Observable, provable facts…But the ‘People of No Book’, hate facts with a passion, and avoid them at all costs when it comes to Islam. What do they get out of shilling for Islam, I don’t know, but my opinion is that I can’t trust them either…and that’s a fact…
joeb says
What Afleck is really saying is “Dear Muslims, PLEASE don’t kill me, I beg you!”
Solitary says
Lol, but, but what about those Christians who didn’t go on Crusade? You never hear any lefty idiot go on about that! Bloody hypocrites.
DAVE says
The decision on who was right in a war is decided on how many die i.e. the least dead mean, they was in the wrong. so in the second world war the Germans was in the right, because more Germans than English died. well done Ben
RHW says
Except that news sites like 7 News (Australia) reported this as a victory for Affleck…
R Davis says
ISN’T SAM HARRIS THE NEW ATHEIST IN A BIT OF TROUBLE HIMSELF (?)
HAS HE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF MISOGYNY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT WOMEN (?)
New Atheist Sam Harris wrote “I am not the sexist pig you are looking for” in his own defense.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SO IMPORTANT-
FOR SAM HARRIS & THE FEMALE POPULATION WHO FEEL THAT HE HAS AGGRIEVED THEM & FOR BEN AFFLECK.
we need to be able to say what we feel in as civilized way as possible & then let us look at what is being said & why.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS SHACKLED OUR POINT OF VIEW & THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUR MIND.
SOMETHING IMPORTANT HAS BEEN LOST PEOPLE.
Judi says
Tom Trento nailed it on his show yesterday:
Samuel Stone says
Bill Maher and Ben Affleck got into another heated debate, this time about which one of them is the bigger douche … http://dandygoat.com/ben-affleck-bill-maher-argue-about-whos-the-bigger-douche
Talal Itani says
Clueless is bad. They should all know what the Quran teaches. Then maybe go on TV and debate Islam. Quran is here http://www.clearquran.com
Mirren10 says
Successful actors/celebrities receive so much ridiculous adulation, it makes them think their vapid ‘opinions’ are of huge value, commensurately.
Actors should stick to acting, instead of annoying the rest of us with their ill-informed and brainless pontificating.
Hex says
In ww2 only 10% of germans were nazi party members yet we still had to defeat an entire nation to destroy the nazi party.
Altar Boy says
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.
Acacia says
Well, I do hope Ben Affleck will visit Iran one day.
He’ll discover pretty soon that his muslim friends are ready to hang him on the very first construction crane just for that movie, Argo =)
Ralph says
THIS IS THE DEVIL HIMSELF…
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
quotha raven says
What I find notable in this discussion with Maher is that there is not ONE reference to the teachings of the Qur’an; indeed, neither the book nor its teachings are even mentioned. Why not? Irrelevant? Or at the very epicenter of all our problems? PC apologists who flap their jaws in support of the Muslim “religion” are simply unaware of what a theocracy is and how it differs from a religion. Supporting Islam is supporting a legal system and fealty inimical to Western thinking and 100% incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. That is the discussion I’d like to see.
I wonder whether Affleck has the intelligence to regret his having even appeared on this show, to be embarrassed, in fact, because he presents as a person as incapable of rational thought and discourse as a posthole. His body language suggests variously bombastic stupidity and frustration (sort of like a 5 yr old not getting his way). His words, such as they are, are just plain silly.
Until the concept of a theocracy, especially one as violent and globally aggressive as Islam, is fully understood by the West, until it is appreciated as distinct and different from the concept of religion, we will continue to hear these crazy, elliptical, non-responsive arguments and shouting matches.
p.s. I met Mohammed Ali 25 years ago with his adult daughter. I was surprised at how kind and sweet a man he was (not a fan of boxing, myself) and was horrified to see that his poor brain had taken such punishment through the years as to make him confused and inconsistent in his thinking and speech. He spoke slowly and with difficulty, this former firecracker. I found it sad. So, while he has allegedly spoken out against extremism in his chosen religion, taken in context of his disability, it is hardly of great significance.
Champ says
Thank you, Quotha Raven! …your comment is *brilliant* as it encapsulates this issue (the one you describe above) so thoroughly and succintly! Bravo!!!
Champ says
…and I hope you’re able to post more often! 🙂
London Jim says
Quotha Raven, that’s a great encapsulation, your ‘theocracy as opposed a religon’ line. Very useful ammunition for any counterjihadist trying to engage the minds of dhimmis-in-waiting. Thanks
quotha raven says
I’m glad you found that helpful, and your kind remarks inspire me to give you perhaps a little more fodder:
Ten years ago, I took an eye-opening course of lectures and discussions about terrorism with some knowledgeable speakers with impressive histories and credentials. The first lecture was given a professor who grew up the son of a diplomat who served in the ME and Russia for many years. His discipline was, as I recall, Middle Eastern Affairs or some such department.
He started his talk by explaining that most Americans proceed from a place of misunderstanding. He said: Islam is not like the religions most of us are familiar with, and a mosque is not like a church with different architecture and beliefs.
I thought these distinctions profound and still do.
He characterized a mosque as the center of an Islamic Nation required to hold as secondary to sharia the laws of where it happens to be geographically situated. The congregation looks to the mosque and the imam who heads it as the center of, and final word on law, court judgments, taxes, social custom, family dispute resolution, religion, punishments, sex, you name it. Imams conduct to his followers Allah’s commands on every aspect of life. As the imam sees them as revealed in the Qur’an.
To reiterate: A mosque is the center of a Muslim Nation, wherever it finds itself.
The Qur’an preaches expansion, complete domination of whoever and whatever is “local”, i.e. whoever happens already to be in that place, with whatever government might be in place.
We could (and Robert Spencer and his tireless posters do) cite the Qur’an til the cows come home as to how the Islamic theocracy works with respect to apostasy, (maybe, just maybe, this explains the resounding silence coming from those billions of moderate Muslims in response to violent jihad – another thing I don’t recall hearing addressed on Maher’s show) the command to expand and establish the ultimate global caliphate, disregard for local law and custom of the host country, Muslim superiority over infidels – those to be despised, lied to, taxed and, when indicated, be smitten upon the neck with a knife til their heads fall off.
Cheers!
quotha raven says
Note to self:
“The congregation looks to the mosque and the imam who heads it as the center of, and final word on law, court judgments, taxes, social custom, family dispute resolution, religion, punishments, sex, you name it.”
Should have included “jihad” in this list!
voegelinian says
The mosque is also a military fortress/outpost, a beachhead in the first wave of conquest; and in our era, due to unprecedented Islamic weakness, the first wave of conquest takes the form most often of demographic jihad and stealth jihad).
quotha raven says
@ Voeg – Absolutely right. I agree 100%.
quotha raven says
I read that too quickly. What do you mean “due to unprecedented Islamic weakness”? Do you mean the unprecedented weakness of the West’s response to jihad/islamist expansion?
voegelinian says
My phrase “unprecedented Islamic weakness” refers to the fact that since their last conventional military assault on a Western city in 1683 (i.e., Vienna), Muslims have been increasingly unable to expand by frank military assaults, invasions & conquests — due I think to two factors, one internal, one external: 1) the Muslim world after the 17th century sank into internal corruption, degradation, stagnation and centrifugally internecine disorders, while 2) during approximately the same time the West began in earnest its spectacular ascendancy to global geopolitical hegemony.
(None of this is literally perfect as expressed; there was overlap, and there were, for example, those factors of internal weakness in Islam evident to one degree or another prior to the 17th century; etc.)
3) Islamic global revival: A concatenation of events and processes beginning in earnest in the 20th century, with roots going back to the 18th and 19th centuries — some serendipitous (e.g., the geological accident of the discovery of oil in Persia and Arabia); some traumatic for the Mohammedan psyche (e.g., the dismantling of the Caliphate in 1924, the “Nakba” of the founding of Israel in 1948, etc.); and some reflecting concerted machination (e.g., the establishment and subsequent international sedition of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the assiduously industrious activities of Wahhabism) — all revolving around the unified aim to realize Islam’s perennial pan-Islamic vision in order to restore and revive the former glory of #1.
quotha raven says
Oh, my, Voeg – that’s enlightening. Thank you for the succinct and clear historical summary. Very helpful, and well-written! And I’ve been meaning to thank you for your little blasts of humor…Muslims Who Just Want a Sandwich? LOL
voegelinian says
Sorry, I hit return too quickly: my “3)” was meant to express an overview of the beginnings of an epochal reversal, throughout the 20th century, of the Islamic weakness I alluded to with my #1, leading to the Pan-Islamic Revival we are seeing in our present century post-911.
voegelinian says
Thanks quotha.
Frank Courtney says
The discussion was remarkable in that there was no mention of the IS savages imitating their role model – the false prophet who was a murderer, plunderer, rapist, deceiver, terrorist, racist, enslaver, misogynist, paedophile as related in various Islamic texts (www.faithfreedom.org – Ali Sina’s challenge for details).
Muhammad, the barbarian who had up to 900 Quraysh youths and men beheaded after the Battle of the Trench in 627AD, their women and children enslaved – most as sex slaves.
Muslims take this barbarian as their Perfect Man role model.
Someone please enlighten the PC afflicked Affleck.
Until all Westerners have a thorough understanding of Muhammad: the type of creature he was (narcissistic psychopath), his terrible deeds and his legacy in Islam we will continue to witness the ignorant drivel spouted by arrogant, deluded leftards such as Affleck.
There may be a “moderate Muslim” hiding somewhere but sure as Hell-is-the-home-of-Allah there is no moderate Islam.
gravenimage says
Frank Courtney wrote:
The discussion was remarkable in that there was no mention of the IS savages imitating their role model…
…………………………
Not really remarkable, Frank.
Even Bill Maher is just what I consider a “common sense” anti-Jihadist.
He sees that Muslims are disproportionately violent, and that they openly act in the name of Islam—and has wits and bravery enough to say so.
But even he knows next to nothing about Islam and the tenets that drive Islamic Jihad.
Uncle Vladdi says
I can’t believe they tapped this retard to play “The Great Detective,” (Batman) when he can’t even detect the world’s oldest, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, when it’s right in front of him: islam!
gravenimage says
How many of us have friends, relatives, and acquaintances just like Ben Affleck?
Nice, decent, relatively intelligent people who are so steeped in “political correctness” that they begin frothing at the mouth should the least criticism or even questioning of Islam come up, terrified lest someone say something “Islamophobic” in their presence?
These are people who are horrified by Islamic atrocities like beheadings, sex slavery, and stonings—but given their knee-jerk political correctness, are actually more horrified that anyone might actually criticize the very creed that gives rise to it.
Ben Affleck’s performance on the Bill Maher show is actually—writ small—exactly what we have to overcome before the Counter-Jihad can make any headway in the West, and before we as a society can really face the Jihad threat.
dumbledoresarmy says
The real challenge is to find a way of doing an end run round the programming.
Some sort of “outflanking” tactic.
I’ve read “Getting Through” once through; need to reread a few times, slowly.
dumbledoresarmy says
I think the key is perhaps to get people *curious*.
gravenimage says
Can you repost the link to “Getting Through”, DDA?
quotha raven says
to DDA – Different person; same entreaty!
Dumbledoresarmy says
You get it via the “Citizen Warrior” website: it’s an actual printed book.
I bought my copy at a Q Society function.
voegelinian says
“Ben Affleck has his sights set on making a movie about the growing conflict in Syria after winning the Best Picture Oscar for [Argo]…”
http://blog.wenn.com/all-news/ben-affleck-turning-attention-to-syria/
Allah help us! 🙂
gravenimage says
Yeah—no way *that* could be good…
And what about the ludicrous Hollywood film—Three Kings—that has the poignant ending where our heroes selflessly help refugees escape Iraq for the ‘free and democratic’ haven of—no sh*t—Iran.
This ridiculous movie stars Ben Affleck’s buddies Mark Wahlberg and George Clooney.
Argo—given its shortcomings and omissions—actually is pretty much an Anti-Jihad movie, as well as very entertaining, and I do recommend it. But its having being made at all seems a bit fluky in this climate.
wolfgang says
Ben ” asswipe ” has just lost all my families vote………and it truly shows how idiotic and stupid these actors are , Cate Blanchett is another pompous, self made over inflated ego bilious gas that has made similar remarks to this fool. No the actors are too overpaid for my liking and wield too much undue influence for my liking.