Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins Scapegoat Islam
October 5, 2009

It seems that Bill Maher likes to change his opinions on US foreign policy depending on who he has on the guest panel. Friday night (October 2nd, 2009) was a perfect example of his inconsistency when he started to engage in juvenile Bushspeak (clip embedded below).
Richard Dawkins appeared on the show to promote his new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution,” and as usual, Maher and Dawkins took some playful jabs at the Christian Right and how “superstitious” the West is becoming. This wasn’t a surprise to me because both Dawkins and Maher aren’t shy when it comes to ridiculing religion.
I don’t argue against their points simply because they’re offensive, but also because they fuel a false notion that “religion” and “science” are “incompatible.” This is not to deny the fact that there is an actual debate between creationists and evolutionists. Rather, the point is that both sides of the argument tend to isolate the many who don’t believe religion and science are antithetical to one another. Instead, we see Dawkins and Maher use ad hominem fallacies to insult and discredit alternative arguments and perspectives. For instance, labeling people who believe in God as “superstitious,” “schizophrenic,” and/or “delusional” only dodges opportunities to engage in productive dialogue.
But this post isn’t about evolution or Dawkins’ new book. It’s about the discussion Maher, Dawkins, and the rest of the guest panel have about Muslims and Islam. Maher initiates the discussion with a recent report of two young Muslim men who had serious intentions to attack locations in the United States, and then makes an absolutely ridiculous assertion that they “don’t hate America, they Love America and feel guilty about it, I think.” During the day, he continues, “they’re eating at Chili’s, going to the titty bar, and then they get on the internet at night and want to atone for the guilt they feel for embracing the West in cyberspace.”
Um, what?!
Maher, who has argued many times on his show that violence against the West occurs because of US foreign policy, suddenly transformed into George W. Bush. Like Bush, Maher is essentially arguing that “they hate us because of our values” or “because we’re a democracy” Muslims feeling guilty about enjoying American culture? What kind of “logic” is Maher using?
After Janeane Garofalo brilliantly exposed how irrational Maher was being and argued that US foreign policy was the main issue, Dawkins chimed in with a lazy and predictable remark, “Why don’t you just say it’s religion, it’s so obvious.” Once again, Dawkins uses religion (in this case, Islam) as a convenient scapegoat to simplify complex realities. Any honest scholar, especially historians who have dedicated their lives to studying so-called “religious wars” or “holy wars,” acknowledge the fact that religion is not the “one and only” cause of war. The fact that Crusaders, for instance, slaughtered and subjugated other Christians (namely the Greek Orthodox Christians and Arab Christians) is one of many examples on how flawed the argument of “holy war” is.
Thomas Friedman, an American journalist who supported the invasion of Iraq, entered the discussion with his sheer arrogance and pompous pseudo-intellectualism, behaving as if he had full credibility to discuss Islam, its theology, its history, and its people. His incredibly flawed and ethnocentric prejudices of Muslims reek in his colossally stupid remarks about the Muslim male psyche and how young Muslim men “hate America” because “their countries” (i.e. Muslim countries) are “behind” in economics and education. Shamelessly, Friedman relies on his own conjectures and then paints Muslims as the “Other.”
And that’s exactly what we get out of this episode: Otherizing Muslims and Islamophobia. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the panelists speak about Muslims as if Islam is not part of America. Although Barack Obama has defended Islam and Muslims on many occasions (and even went as far as saying Islam is part of America), it seems that this message is not resonating with many people. I get the feeling that Bill Maher was afraid to invite Reza Aslan, Naomi Klein, and Jeremy Scahill (who have all been on his show before) for this episode because either one of them would have blasted Maher, Friedman, and Dawkins on their ignorance and childish generalizations.
I’m hoping Reza Aslan appears on the show soon. Maybe he can help correct Maher’s Bushspeak and elementary school logic.
Entry Filed under: Current Events, Media. Tags: Bigotry, Bill Maher, foreign policy, George Bush, Hate, Ignorance, Islam, Islamophobia, Janeane Garofalo, Muslims, Obama, Racism, Reza Aslan, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Friedman.
19 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

1.
Jamil | October 5, 2009 at 4:53 am
Bill, your trying too hard with the foolish arguments. An idiot finally reveals his colors.
2.
JenniferRuth | October 5, 2009 at 8:51 am
Richard Dawkins is a smug plague on all atheists.
I may be an atheist but I see no reason why religion and science can’t sit alongside (and have done for thousands of years). Neither can I see any reason to label myself as more “rational” than the religious. Dawkins clearly has a massive ego.
I read blogs like these because I want to hear other people’s perspective (although I don’t comment if I don’t feel I can add something to the conversation).
By simplistically laying the world’s ills at religions face Dawkins only fuels irrational hatred and stops us tackling real problems. The world is a huge and complex place. You can’t just point the finger at one part of it. You’d think that a scientist would be smart enough to work this out.
As I am not American I don’t really know who Bill Maher is. He sounds pretty ill-informed here though.
3.
Jehanzeb | October 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Thank you for your comment, Jennifer! Your words are much appreciated and I agree that religion and science are not incompatible. The problem I have with individuals like Maher and Dawkins is that they seem to equate “evolution” with “atheism,” which alienates those who actually believe in God *and* evolution.
Furthermore, their arguments seem to fuel a conflict between atheists and those who believe in God — as if they can’t find any common ground, or that one is better than the other (which is essentially the same kind of attitude that religious extremists have towards those who don’t follow their religion and/or don’t believe in God).
As you said, simplifying a complex world is very problematic and it just exposes Dawkins’ ego. Bill Maher is considered to be a liberal, and he has expressed his anti-war views many times on his show, but every once in a while (like in this episode), he comes out saying something bizarre and reminiscent of the previous administration. It makes you question what his real views are.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts and thanks for reading my blog
4.
Fiqah | October 5, 2009 at 1:00 pm
J-Heezy, SO glad you wrote about this ’cause a.) this mess REALLY was begging to be decontructed and b.) it needed to be done by a Muslim, IMO. I’d have loved to have written about this but I feel your perspective is more nuanced and informed than mine. Well done!
(Oh, and please read the “Towel Headed Hos” piece linked here, it’s good.)
5.
Jehanzeb | October 5, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Hey Fiqah! Thank you! After I saw the episode, I was just so appalled at his comments. I was like, “Why he is talking like George Bush?”
I’m going to read the “Towel Headed Hos” piece soon! Thanks for letting me know about it
6.
Tracey | October 5, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I get the feeling that the only way I can describe Maher is a self-centered, self-righteous, inflametory, possibly sexist meanie. He tries so hard to make it seem that he is a reasonable person who hates extremes on all sides, then does something like this. What he really means is that any opinion other than his is extreme, ignorant and misinformed.
I fell out with him after he said on the Daily Show that atheists were just as arrogant as religious people b/c they claim to know there is no divine, then sat back in glee as people clapped for how rational he is. Wrong, just wrong. Not only does he need to recheck the definition of atheism (lack of belief), but maybe meet enough people of faith to realize many of them would say it is through their faith that they believe, not because they claim to have undeniable proof. The number of religious people who engage in junk science to try and prove their view of natural history is very small. As a matter of fact, my biological anthropology teacher (meaning she was probably required to have a better understanding of evolution than Maher could ever hope to obtain unless he too is working towards a Ph.D. in anthro w/ a focus on biological/primatology) was very involved in her church and taught sunday school. I know this b/c she, as many biology teachers do, made it known that the class would be based on evolution. Did not mean you had to accept it, just understand it. She the told us about her church involvement to demonstrate that the two were not incompatible.
Saying things like that is an insult to her and the many,many other scientists of faith who work in fields which require a thorough understanding of evolution and natural forces/laws. Not to mention Mendelin, a pioneer in the field of genetics and the way they are passed down was a monk. Try getting past 9th grade biology w/o an understanding of the genetic square that that particular religious “nut” developed. Then there are the nuns who developed a glutten free communion waffer for people with allergies because several of the nuns had degrees in chemistry, biology, and food science. And if all the jurors in the Scopes trial, and all the members of the Supreme Court who struck down creationism in schools were atheists, this is news to me.
Not only am I mad at Maher for retelling the misconception that all atheists claim to “know” there is no divine, but for being so arrogant and smug while putting down others for their supposed arrogance (and by arrogance he means disagreeing with him). I am quite certain that if all the religious and/or spiritual (not to mention the atheists like myself that still occasionally attend services with Quakers or Universal Unitarians) people in the scientific and medical fields were to cease working, those fields would come to a stand still. Also, I’m beginning to think that Dawkins has an inflated sense of importance, and quite a few people who respect him as a scientist thinks he should stop with the whole philosophy thing.
7.
Jehanzeb | October 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Thanks for your thoughts and comments, Tracey
You offer a lot of insight and information about how science and religion, both currently and historically, are not incompatible. I especially like your point about Gregor Mendel.
I honestly a lot of people get the wrong idea about atheism and religion from people like Maher and Dawkins. Perhaps Dawkins should just stick to his field and not discuss politics and/or religion.
Thanks again for your insightful comment!
8.
Chiara | October 6, 2009 at 10:10 pm
This video was worse than I was expecting. I’m not sure why Maher is so unnuanced and unfunny on this topic. Janeanne Garofalo had the most intelligent and accurate comments of the lot.
Dawkins science isn’t without its critics either, who suggest he is being overly simplistic in seeing evolution as a function of change at the gene level, rather than that of the combinations at the level of an allele.
Contrary to popular misbelief the majority of scientists, including the great ones, are both religious and spiritual and most of the rest are spiritual. One in my acquaintance who has been nominated for a Nobel Prize in a science is profoundly religious. Discovering the workings of the universe is not incompatible with religion nor do they think so. Many religions, including Islam most notably encourage study, knowledge acquisition, and scientific inquiry.
The atheists, and secular humanists I know are more respectful of others’ beliefs than Messrs Maher and Dawkins. It is pathetic to see their interactions, and the comments of Friedman here, as each is capable of better.
It seems 9/11 irrationality has taken over the 3 of them. Dawkins misuses the term delusion about religion and Maher misuses the term schizophrenia in the typical way of mistaking being of 2 minds about something– ambivalence, love-hate relationship–with what is actually a disorder of thought processes.
“Suicide bombers = terrorists = Muslims = they” There is not a logician in the lot of them, let alone a true humanist. Garofalo is at least a good political scientist.
Interesting –but annoying LOL
–post!
9.
Joseph Shahadi | October 7, 2009 at 12:28 am
Jehanzeb,
I cosign Fiqah… I am really glad you wrote this. I watched this exchange with my mouth hanging open. Maher, Dawkins (boo!) and Friedman were all so wrong on so many levels at once that it made me dizzy. Even though Janeane Garafalo spoke eloquently about why his opinions were irrational, he would not be dissuaded. For me this is the hallmark of racist discourse: an emotional argument that feels so true to the person saying it that facts are irrelevant to them.
10.
Jim | October 7, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If it is the case that muslims who commit terror are only doing so because of the United States foreign policy then that would make the 9/11 hijackers not murderers or terrorists but individuals participating in a legitimate act of self defense right?
Do you believe that environmentalists who commit acts of terror due to U.S. environmental policy to be as justified as muslims who commit acts of terror due to U.S foreign policy?
Lastly, can you inform me how i can defend myself against the inevitable violent muslim attacks (as the same people are REALLY in power as were during the Bush years) without being islamophobic. I don’t want to offend Islam.
11.
Jehanzeb | October 7, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Jim,
Stop stalking me. I have seen you on this blog before. You have signed under different names like “Steven” or “Stephen,” and your IP addresses reveal that you are writing from Penn State university.
When I write a blog post about peace and coexistence, you point fingers at Muslims and Islam. When I write about breaking stereotypes, you start promoting them. When I write poems, you make rude comments that are completely irrelevant to what I’m writing — that’s disrespectful. When I ban you from commenting, you use another IP address from the same location
I’ve tried to engage in dialogue with you before, and it was a waste of time because all you do is blame Islam and Muslims for all the problems. You ask ridiculous questions with insulting implications about Muslims and Islam. Who said that terrorists are “participating in a legitimate acts of self-defense?” That’s not even what I said. The only person saying that is YOU.
You don’t care to *listen* to what Muslims have to say because, in your mind, we’re all the same. You have a prejudice against Muslims. It’s obvious. You twist words in order to read what you want to read.
You got your own issues to sort out. Figure out why you hate Muslims and Islam. Enroll in an inter-cultural communications class. Go visit a Mosque. Go make some Muslim friends. You should have went to an iftar dinner during Ramadan.
I feel sorry for you because you waste so much of your time stalking Muslims on the blogosphere. Get a life and get help if the Islamophobia is affecting you that much.
12.
jc420 | October 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm
They all had their points, but I think Maher’s could have been made without appearing so ethnocentric. There are cultural positives in Western society that have been forcibly excluded in the Islamic world for the mere reason that they contradict stricter interpretations of Islam. The secularization of the West is something we view as a positive benefit to all members of a democratic society because it permits us to practice freely within our social and cultural spheres. However, to say that we can divide the problem of terrorism into exclusive political and exclusive political spheres is a bit short-sighted. And to get mad and play the victim of anti-Islam scapegoating also adds nothing to the conversation. It is a sensitive situation because jerks like Bush, Cheney, and recently McCain’s camp have launched criticisms of Islam as political fireballs, muddling the debate on Islam and modernization. Clearly both religion AND politics are involved.
But oddly enough, Dawkins is not incorrect. The current social constructions of Islam have been forged in political and religious radicalization. But the political implications within Islam seem largely to be ignored. Is Sha’ria not some reflection on belief? Are not the social injustices of it a result of politically actualizing Islamic moral doctrine? Do the Quranic phrases which endorse the killing of infidels carry weight with contemporary interpretations of Islam? These are serious questions that fail to be answered by a dismissal of the religious aspects of Islam. Similar to the way that critiques of Israel and Messianic Judaism are dodged by accusations of Anti-Semitism, it is interesting (and perhaps ironic) that criticizing Islam brings a similar kneejerk about ethnic racism. I agree that this issue is sensitive, and that often the motives of such criticism are based on xenophobia and ethnic prejudices, but not permitting the examination of the psychological impact that specific doctrines have, or the political ideologies within Islam, or their effects as catalysts or justifications for inhumane behavior will not result in progress with this issue.
13.
Jehanzeb | October 13, 2009 at 2:26 am
JC420,
No, I am not playing “victim.” To accuse me of that is offensive, condescending, and completely ignores the realities that Muslim-Americans face and experience — realities that I suggest you should make efforts to understand.
Calling Muslims or anyone who believes in God “schizophrenic” is not a criticism; it’s an arrogant and personal attack. It’s an insult.
You need to get rid of this whole divide about Islam and modernization. If you think every single Muslim country is “backward,” then you’re totally giving into the Orientalist presentation of the so-called “Muslim world” in mainstream media. There are Muslim democratic countries, and historically, we have seen Islamic civilization contribute countless advances in science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, music, and so on (during a time when Europe was in the Dark Ages).
You are speaking about Muslims in a manner that suggests most Muslims are violent and aggressive. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and if you personally know Muslims, or have Muslim friends, then I’m sure you would know by now that most Muslims are peaceful and non-violent.
Your views on the Sharia and “violent verses” in the Qur’an reflect your limited knowledge about Islam. I never have to address those issues with my non-Muslim friends anymore because I’ve explained it to them so many years ago! In any case, please read “The Muslim Next Door” by Sumbul Ali-Karamali. It will enlighten you about what Muslims really believe and how those verses in the Qur’an are strictly about self-defense and directed specifically to the Quraysh tribe which persecuted, tortured, and waged war on the early Muslims.
If you have a genuine interest to learn about Islam, then I’m confident that you will purchase the book and read it with an open mind. I also think you need to be aware that hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslim-Americans have increased since 9/11. A recent survey conducted by the Pew Forum found that “nearly 40% of Americans still say they think Islam is more likely to encourage violence.” CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) found a spike in hate crimes during the month of Ramadan (which was last month!).
It’s not a “knee-jerk” reaction. It’s called standing up for your human rights. It’s called respecting every person as a human being and not judging them based on stereotypes and/or misinformation propagated by people who absolutely have no credibility.
As I said, read “The Muslim Next Door.” It’s one of the most important books out there for all non-Muslims, especially if you don’t have any Muslim friends.
Peace.
14.
Fiqah | October 13, 2009 at 4:24 am
Right ON, Jehanzeb. High-five!
::: waves upthread :::
Hello, Joe! Whaddya know?
15.
Jerry | October 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm
You wrote above there there is “a false notion that “religion” and “science” are “incompatible.” This is not to deny the fact that there is an actual debate between creationists and evolutionists.” I never really understand what is meant by this.
Religion and science are no more compatible or incompatible than literature and sport – they are just different. Religion embodies a faith-based way of seeing and understanding the world and science follows a rational methodology that requires observation, testability, etc. For example, the belief in a supreme being/creator is just that – a belief – there is no science in it (this doesn’t mean that there is no God, it just means there is no “scientific proof” that can be had.
Using the means and methods of science, there is no proof at all for the existence of Abraham or Moses – that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist; it just means that you can not prove that they did and, from a scientific perspective, at the present time, we should conclude that they did not exist – that would be changed if more information became available.
But remember, if you wanted to maintain that religion and science operated in a substantially similar manner, you would have to admit that you might be able to find something out, that would allow you to change your mind about your current truth and come to the conclusion that there is no God, or that the Quran, or bible does not reflect the revealed word of God. That’s how science works.
I would therefore say, that religion and science are neither compatible nor incompatible; they are simply two very different ways of seeing and understanding the world we live in
16.
teiquirisi | October 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I think evolutionary biologists should stick to what they’re good at.
17.
Zachary Uram | December 3, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thank you for commenting on this. As an American evangelical Christian thinker I was outraged on many levels by this episode. Dawkins is a bigot and ironically a fundamentalist, his “religion” is secular humanism and scientism (note: not science). It is nothing old, a strict materialist view of the physical world (denying any role for agency) which is supported by the philosophy of logica positivism. It is actually a very shallow and incomplete philosophical system. I have had many wonderful chats with atheists and agnostics and none has the massive arrogance and smug superiority complex which Dawkins has in abundance! Muslims and Christians have a lot of common beliefs actually and we should celebrate that and stop letting idiots divide us. Anyone who knows anything about Muslim beliefs and culture would laugh at the panelists’ false assertions and racist statements.
18.
Chiara | December 3, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Nice comment. I would have to agree on Dawkins impoverishment of the philosophies he abuses rather than uses, and also on the shared beliefs of the Abrahamic religions.
19.
Zachary Uram | December 4, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Thanks Chiara. I also enjoyed your comments.