Maher and Rula Jebreal Battle Over Berkeley, Radical Islam
mediaite.com/tv/maher-and-rula-jebreal-throw-...
mediaite.comPosted Nov 1, 2014, 5:29 AM UTC
2917
mediaite.comI can finally say, that the overconfidence (that some people feel on the religious side this debate) is finally going down. She was BESIDE herself when she realized that half the audience thought her ideas were absurd and she misrepresented Maher.
15
So she thinks free speach is free speach if the other person has the opprotunity socially to shout over you?
14
[deleted]
-13
Does intense criticsm of Judaism as a religion - say, the torah, and of the Jewish right (say the Netanyahu government) - rise to the level of antisemitism? I've watched Maher both in this clip and in the Affleck thing and didn't think it rose to a comparable level to antisemitism.
9
Bill Maher is critical of Judaism as well. Does that make him an antisemite? There are many semites that don't ascribe to the Jewish faith, is he against them too then? He's critical of bad ideas and people that hold those bad ideas. If I say that 84% of all Egyptian muslims think death penalty for apostasy is the right punishment, then there is something rotten that needs to be addressed. What he's saying in no way compares to antisemitism.
8
[deleted]
-1
Ok but Bill isn't an anti-Muslim so it's not an excellent point.
7
Since when anti-semitism was about Judaism, the religion? It's called anti-semitism (applying to the ethnic group) not anti-judaism for a reason. Jewish people are hated, Judaism doesn't really play a big part to that hate especially when you think that most jewish people are secular anyway.
Sure I can very well imagine that there are people who would scream ''rascism, anti-semitism'' when someone critices/dislikes judaistic ideas and morals but that doesn't justify the attempt to silence a religion-critical/sceptic debate that would just prove how misguided the contemporary ''anti-rascism'' policies are.
4
[deleted]
1
Rula Jebreal looked and sounded ridiculous with all her shouting n ranting!
As Maher rightly pointed out....even Rezla Aslan who a muslim with advanced degrees in religion, doesnt go as far as calling him a bigot. Maher is not comparable to a person producing hate speech. While some of his arguments about Islam may be faulty (eg female mutilation is an islamic problem) he is very far from being classified as a bigot.
14
I absolutely adore and respect her, and pretty much despise Maher (which is frustrating since I agree with his positions on nearly every issue, I just loathe his personality), but she came off badly last night. I wonder if it's some cultural difference, where she believes that her level of... assertiveness... shown last night, comes across positively, and it just doesn't translate completely to the culture that's watching the show (including me).
1
I thought it was pretty low when she tried to steer the migrant worker abuse discussion back to the earlier Islam argument with her jab about how the farmers were Americans and not Muslims.
11
yeah, I mean her assertiveness seemed to push (or cross) the line before, and then the comment in the migrant worker discussion just seemed so out of place and kind of embarrassing. It's so weird, I have so much respect for her otherwise, but her behavior here just did no credit to her cause at all and was rather disappointing.
2
Better discussion on this here
2
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
-1
This religion was literally founded on Violence, how did mecca become islamic? Allah handed it to the lap of mohammad? What occured right after the prophets death? Why doesn't Jebreal look straight into the camera and say that muslims who advocate for same sex marriage are not islamic either? See because in Jebreal's world, if she disagrees with a group they "aren't muslim" like ISIS, but if she agrees with a movement like the Muslim LGBT movement then they're just "progressive muslims". You can't just nit pick, if one isn't muslim the other isn't too, if one is muslim then the other is too.
You're talking about 'true scotsman' fallacy. Though I think Muslims are allowed to define themselves however they see fit.
As for this preoccupation for condemning violence, all empires and even civilisations were violent and brutal at their inception. America is no exception. Violence is inherent in every society that has laws and enforces them.
You seem to want to denigrate the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' rather than ideas or behaviour. That's really not going to bring about the change you seem to desire.
Is America a religion? And in the quran does it say to imperialize? They fell into the same thing all major religions did and its the same with every religion, its a way to organize people who have no hope and happiness into believing in a power and following the words of those who think they know what that prophet was. "All empires and even civilizations were violent in their inception"
But I thought religion is supposed to take away that chaos and make a society better under the rule of an almighty power, not do the same thing all other civilizations did.
The point is that violence per se is considered irreligious, and use of violence discredits the faith. Why should that be when every reasonable world view will permit violence as it is deemed necessary?
You would not have any qualms about using violence to protect your rights, i presume?
It's considered irreligious by Buddhists and Jainists. Violence is commanded very explicitly by Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. To follow the teachings of the Abrahamic faiths, you MUST commit violence.
In the story of Mohammad taking mecca, his views were not being attacked after he left Mecca for Medina. In the story of Mohammad and Mecca, its the citizens of Mecca whose rights were being violated and the citizens of Mecca wanted to protect their rights, you just defined self defense and it was the citizens of Mecca who were the self defenders not Mohammad.
"the point is that violence per se is considered irreligious, and use of violence discredits the faith. Why should that be when every reasonable world view will permit violence as it is deemed necessary?"
because, religious people say that violence is not in their books unless its in self defense, and as we showed above, religions were founded or followed (by the direct followers of the founders of the religion) by violence that were not self defense. Again with your quote about using violence to protect my rights, I don't think imperialism is a method of protecting my rights, I dont think i can go into my neighbors home and try to take over his home violently and then say it was self defense/ "I was using violence to protect my rights".