Concerning the Discourse on Bill Maher's Show

A Letter of Advice, to He Who is in Need of Being Nice
The Principal Problem with the Discourse on Bill Maher’s Show

Dear Bill,

I listened to the whole dialogue about Muslim ‘moderates’ and extremists etc. that you had on your show recently. The problem with this whole discourse is that it is centered around the idea that an ever-changing, arbitrary process and ideology that often leads to that which was worse and more shocking than before, is presented as being the quintessence of civilization, progress, and modernity.

Please consider that much of the beliefs and acts you call others too, are in fact only repackaged, ancient beliefs and acts of waywardness – there is nothing really modern or progressive regarding much of what you talk about.

Ben Affleck’s Error

Ben Affleck made a nice effort to defend Islam and Muslims, but the mistake he made was in generally agreeing with your liberal starting point – that this liberal belief system is the be all and end all, and the ideology through which all belief systems should be viewed and judged.

This is presented to your audience as a given, when in reality, it is a corrupt ideology based on a warped starting point that human ‘reasoning’ should be the absolute criterion in deciding the meaning of life while we are temporarily living in this world.

How Dost Thou Judge

The assumption is always that this contrived paradigm you and others have created which is rooted to nothing, brought about through an arbitrary process and guided by a very limited mechanism (the human mind), is somehow in an advantageous position to judge everyone else.

Indeed, if your vision is true that there is no God and no absolute truth, who are you then to judge others who have their own way which differs from yours? Even within your own paradigm which you have created for yourself, you by default need to stop being judgmental of everyone around you, as in your world vision, there is no absolute right or wrong that can be pointed to for you to criticize others with.

Bill, look within yourself, and you will find that your system of belief and your rather fanatical positions are, in actuality, self-contradictory. It’s just that you have a very strong apparatus behind you, which is giving you the air of being right, when in reality, your radical so-called liberal views are easily brought to nothing, when looked at with sound human reasoning.

Rightly Guided Muslims Are Committed to Rational and Balanced Thought

Which brings me to my next point: You are always hounding on about the fact that only you and your ilk make sense, and that Muslims do not make any sense. Muslims fail to use human reasoning, and thus, are misguided and causing trouble in the world.

Now, I will agree with you that the Muslim world is in a shameful mess right now, and I will not even attempt to explain that away. When I am talking about Islam here, I am not talking about the Islam of ISIS or al-Qaeda, nor am I going to talk about how these groups got to be where they are right now. According to the legislation of Islam, these Neo-Khawarij (extremist renegades) and Leninist Qutbists are indeed, evil creatures.

Your inferred assumption that Muslims do not use human reasoning only because it does not agree with your ‘follow-your-desires’ synthetic archetype is flat out wrong. Indeed, were you to understand the true nature of human capabilities and their inherent limitations, you would come to see that a true Islamic worldview is actually very balanced and in keeping with our purpose of existence. Although I consider you to be a highly intelligent person (who is using his intelligence in the wrong way), do you truly consider the limitations of the human mind when you are formulating your postulates?

Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said (the meaning in English being):

And of knowledge, you have been given only a little.
[17:85]

What is passed off today as human reasoning is often human guesswork which frequently turns out to be wrong and opposed a few decades later. However, committed Muslims with a good understanding of classical Islam do not reject the use of sound human reasoning, which is why Islamic scholarship has always been an evidence-based type of scholarship. This is why knowledgeable Muslims who are well grounded in classical scholarship are perfectly able to counter your atheistic or free-for-all views, which in reality, are not grounded to anything at all.

In no way do we reject human reasoning. It’s just that we humble ourselves, know our true place within this existence, and have a sound understanding of where and in what way to use human reasoning. We also understand when sound reasoning necessitates following authentic and preserved revelation which is full of thought provoking argumentation. The Qur’an is full of invitations for people to think, ponder and contemplate things very deeply. You will see this type of invitation throughout the book:

“…perchance they might reflect…”
[59:21]

Unfortunately, your haranguing arguments indicate your true level of reflection, which in reality is very shallow, materialist and limited – never mind archaic:

And they say: “There is nothing except our life on this earth,
and never shall we be raised up again.”
[6:29]

Although this book was revealed over 1,400 years ago, it contains many arguments in it that effectively refute your supposedly modern beliefs. I have written a book called Sacred Freedom: Western Liberalist Ideologies in the Light of Islam which touches on many of the subjects which you have – in reality – taken as your sacred religion (even if you claim to hate religions). It uses verses from the Qur’an to rebut what you are saying, and there is a whole chapter which deals with your favourite subject of atheism. It is available in various places on the Internet as a free download, and I hope you can find it of benefit.

Human reasoning is in no way rejected by Muslims who understand classical Islam, as sound human reasoning is given an elevated status in areas of teaching and discourse with others. Why would this not be when the Qur’an is full of various arguments which appeal directly to human intellect and reasoning?

Human reasoning is also required in the process of researching and judging the chains of narrations of prophetic narrations, as well as harmonizing and applying these same texts. Human reasoning has also been employed in the formulation and application of the fundamentals of jurisprudence which have been deduced from these texts. This list is only mentioned by way of example, and is in no way exhaustive.

However, human thought has its limits, and the Islamic sacred law recognizes these limitations. Do you? Sound human reasoning knows when to recognize true revelation, and when it is time to submit to the One who created human minds and everything that exists.

This is the harmony that this process strikes between using human reasoning and adhering closely to preserved religious texts; it in fact appeals innately to sound human reasoning.

Please, Leave off the Gauche and Trite Analysis

Bill, your spiteful diatribes are based on superficial analysis which does not preclude your social and cognitive prejudices of things you do not truly understand. Although your confrontational and self-assured approach seems convincing to those who share your arbitrary, and – in reality – unsophisticated process of formulating a worldview, this does not mean that it leads to anything of worth to humans in the grand scale of things.

If your process is arbitrary and not rooted to anything besides your ever-changing social and cognitive desires and prejudices, how can you produce a sound worldview that will be truthfully beneficial to humankind? How then do you see that you are in a position to judge others so severely, especially when you do not even believe in God or an absolute truth that we can refer to?

What, Bill, is the criterion that you refer to in your efforts to prove your points, besides your opinions and certain prevailing contemporary views within your society which are subject to change at any time? Can you fill me in on the critical process you have undertaken to arrive at these assumptions?

Sorry, We Do Not Agree with Your Conjectural Starting Point

You brought up the issue of Islam’s failure to provide women equal rights on your show. The trap that many defenders of Islam would fall into – including some Muslims – is to agree with your original assumption that men and women should indeed have equal rights. They will then attempt to convince the viewers that Islam grants men and women equal rights, when everyone and Bill Maher knows that this is not the case. Being a highly intelligent person, you will immediately recognize these apologetics and call your guests out, usually in a rather smug and unkind manner.

The question is: Why should we agree with this assumption in the first place; that men and women should be given equal rights? Is this something that was scientifically or empirically proven, or something which came from an All-Wise, All-Knowing God? Surely not, as you do not even believe in such absolutes anyway.

So why then, are you so radical about things that are mere suppositions based on conjecture and cultural biases? If we aren’t really dealing with any absolutes (as you espouse with your atheistic creed), then why not allow others form their own opinions and choose their own ways to live? Surely, that would be true liberalism.

Equal or Complementary Rights?

I will say briefly that Islam provides women with complementary rights, which is a lot more in keeping with human nature than claiming that men and women should have ‘equal’ rights. Scientists, psychologists and doctors – whose opinions you would hold high – testify to the fact that men and women are in fact quite different in nature, yet ideologues such as yourself insist that they should have exactly the same rights.

This is the problem with humanist thought. Although it seems to be superior to Islamic monotheism to those who only look at things from a superficial perspective, it does not truly meet humankind’s greatest needs precisely because it does not recognize or understand them in the first place.

Please Describe Your Sophisticated and Methodically Thought Out Process

Bill, what type of process of reasoning did you use to come to this position of yours? This is the same position which you are scorning and ridiculing Muslims for. Do you realize what an unsophisticated and even unscientific process you have used to come to this conclusion?

What then, is your problem with people not holding exactly the same views as you in matters related to gender relations, when you yourself do not believe in God, the concept of absolute truth or a conclusive criterion that can be referred to in such issues? What happened to the liberal value of live and let live? Laissez-faire, as they say in France. Isn’t that what being liberal is all about. Would I be wrong to call you a faux-liberal? Truly, your methodology and the worldview it creates is self-contradictory.

And many do lead (humankind) astray by their own desires
through lack of knowledge. Certainly, your Lord
knows best those who transgress.
[6:119]

Bill Maher: A Progressive or Ancient Force?

As for the gay rights issue which you deride Muslims for on your show, do you not realize that you are an important component of the present erosion of your society and its ultimate downfall? There is nothing new or progressive in what you or others like you are espousing. Rather, you are actually reviving something ancient. Perhaps you have heard of the Prophet Lot? In reality, you are only repackaging ancient acts and beliefs (atheism, disbelief, godless materialism, homosexuality, smut, obscenity etc.) and presenting them to your audience as something progressive.

Indeed, a cursory look at previous civilizations shows that your type of promotion of unfettered lewd behaviour including the promotion of homosexuality has led to the decline and fall of dominant civilizations. America is burning while its people are listening to you and being entertained with obscenity.

You think that you are bringing about good, but you are actually corrupting the very foundations of your society. Everyone is having a laugh with you now, but this point I am making will only become obvious to you and others when the whole affair is finished, and people look back in regret.

And when it is said to them,
“Do not cause corruption on the earth,”
they say, “We are but reformers.”
[2:11]

Your Yardstick is Your Desires

Bill, your continual endorsement of lewd behaviour on your show is really played out. This is mental and moral laziness on your part; anyone can do that. You don’t seem to have too many limits in these regards, either. Since you do not believe in promoting noble morals and ethics, may I ask what is stopping you from going all the way?

Why do you stop at the point you stop at? Why not promote free sex on your show and in the middle of the street? Why prohibit incest? Why not go much, much further than the point where you might jokingly say, “That’s fine, I’m ok with that.” In fact, why have any moral barriers or prohibit anything? At what point will you stop, and why? What is your criterion in all of this, and if there is none, how do you get off being so hatefully critical of those who oppose your mere opinion and following of base desires?

If there truly is nothing sacred and special about sex which our Creator would want to channel and control for His creation, why have any type of barriers in this issue? Why have laws about nakedness or any type of rules – social or legal – about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. What is it that is holding you back from going much further than you presently are, and what is your criterion in picking and choosing what you hold to be acceptable in this matter?

If you do not have any answer, then know that your Creator has given you an ability to intuitively know that there is something special about the act of sex, and that it does need to be controlled in some ways. Nobody is in a better position than Him to know what is right and wrong, or beneficial and harmful. The ever-changing opinions of your society and the views of the people of Lot or any other civilization in history are not a proof to be used against others who differ with you.

It’s not a matter of being a religious prude. It’s a matter of using your human intellect in a sound manner to bring about a well thought out conclusion that takes into account the ultimate purpose of this life and the hereafter. And if you have not made any effort to try to understand or arrive at these objectives, are you really in any position to judge others’ perspectives on God and religion so severely – especially if you do not believe in any type of absolute criterion which you can point others to?

And among men is he who disputes about Allah,
without knowledge or guidance, or an enlightening book [from Him].
[22:8]

Popularity is Not a Proof

So we thank Ben for trying to defend Muslims from your continuous attacks. But the mistake that he made was to agree with your ‘liberal’ starting point, which in reality, is an arbitrary and corrupt one. Although currently popular, it is not grounded in anything empirical or constant at all.

The Apostasy/Mafia Whack and Con

When arguing with Ben, you insistently brought up your point about apostasy in Islam while comparing it to the Mafia. Of course, you couldn’t make your point without using the ‘F’ word. This made it all the more funny to your studio audience. Isn’t bullying and bad language something normally used a lot by the Mafia?

Although you have the air of modernity and progress on your beautiful HBO television set and you have an audience to clap and support your statements and views, this is not a proof that what you are saying is correct, or that the values of the society you find yourself in are automatically correct.

Since all parties were in agreement with your arbitrarily contrived starting-point (that this form of capital punishment contravenes human rights), your harping on this subject was a very intelligent ruse on your part. You kept pressing Ben on the apostasy point, and although he tried to argue his main thesis of there being bias against Islam and Muslims, you were somewhat successful in showing the audience that there was a flaw to his argument. Allow me to explain.

Your Knockout Point is – Upon Reflection – Actually a Dud

Your main point was that a poll you saw showed that a majority of Muslims in a certain country believed that the correct punishment for apostasy was execution. Since Ben does not support capital punishment for such a matter to begin with, you were able to use this point against him because this form of capital punishment does legitimately exist in classical Islam. Nobody can or should deny that. As a side point, it should also be noted that capital punishment for apostasy also exists in the Bible. We of course believe that the present day Bible – even if it has undergone many alterations – was originally revealed from the same God who revealed the final revelation (al-Qur’an).

The problem here is that there is an assumption, and that is that we are supposed to see the world through the viewpoint of modern humanism, which in many respects, is a product of human guesswork and speculation through the kinds of arbitrary processes we find you engaged in. From this contemporary humanist viewpoint, execution for leaving a religion seems like something severe and unnecessary, primarily because a humanist standpoint doesn’t recognize there being an absolute truth to life that humankind should be adhering to.

If we switch angles and look at things from an Islamic-monotheistic perspective, then things look quite different. From the perspective of this system of belief, apostasy means turning your back on the One whose air you breathe, food you eat, and water you drink. You are turning your back on the One who keeps your heart beating even while you are asleep, and regulates your life for you continually, even on a cellular level.

From this perspective, turning your back on the Creator and the message of the preserved and final revelation after having believed and known about the truth is much greater in crime than having only disbelieved. After all, the Qur’an tells us that there is no compulsion to believe, as truth stands out clear from error. Apostasy, on the other hand, is another issue. This and other capital punishments in Islam exist to preserve the greater interests of society, just as your society regulates many aspects of people’s personal lives for the betterment of society.

Unfortunately, extremists and light-headed political activists in this time have distorted and raised the level of these capital punishments and related issues of governance to become – in their minds – the ultimate aim of Islam, which is, without doubt, a great lie. Ironically, they arrived at these innovated conclusions by abandoning the legislated path which has always been understood by classical Islamic scholars, and used their own faulty human reasoning without right (while sinfully attributing their beliefs and acts to God). If you take out the God part of this equation, do this sound like a familiar process to you?

Weigh With Just Scales

Bill, I should actually be asking you why you are so fixated on the issue of apostasy in Islam. Your own Western societies have something very similar for the crime of turning one’s back on society and the State. Traditionally, these have been called such things as mutiny, sedition and aiding the enemy. All three of these are still punishable by death in your country. We, as committed monotheists, just happen to think that turning your back on the Creator is much greater than turning your back on the State.

This is the problem with so much of the discourse presently going on in the media about Islam. As soon as any subject is brought up, it is always talked about through the lens of a humanist eye, regardless of the legitimacy of humanist processes or conclusions.

Upon that basis is Islam discussed, and anyone who tries to defend Islam is going to have difficulty maneuvering around those aspects of Islam that differ from ever-changing contemporary humanist beliefs, which are taken as an absolute truth by default.

That being said, there are actually many aspects of contemporary humanist thought that happen to agree with Islamic ethics, just as there are some beliefs, ethics and rulings in Islam that will clash with these humanist ideas. Some humanists such as yourself hold that there is no Creator, which necessitates that there is no absolute truth or criterion which can be pointed to which would formulate a system of worship or way of life.

You believe that there is no Creator, even if this belief clashes with established scientific principles of everything around you. Although you can see the effect of causality, you cannot understand that there was a cause that brought this effect into being. You do this even though when dealing with other subjects, you would affirm the central scientific principle that for every cause, there is an effect. This is yet another example of how your belief system is much more biased and unscientific than you think.

Is there doubt about Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth?
[14:10]

Other humanists say that they believe in a Creator, but view that humankind should choose their own way of belief, worship and living. In essence, they are saying that they are more knowledgeable than the Creator about these affairs, even if they never stopped to think about it in those terms.

Say (to them), “Do you know better or does Allah?”
[2:140]

How carefully have these two types of humanists really thought things out, and what type of methodical process did they follow to arrive at these conclusions? Why should Muslims take the viewpoint of either of these groups seriously, and why should these fluctuating opinions – which come about through corrupt procedures – be the starting point for any conversation? Just because these views predominate in this time, doesn’t mean that they are correct or that they are rooted to anything constant or unchangeable.

A Sign from your Creator

The website that I originally found the article about the Ben Affleck episode in also included an article about Islam’s method of slaughtering animals. It’s just another issue that has many Western ‘humanists’ upset. Again, we see the same process of disbelieving in what the prophets came with (as this was the method of slaughter which they all adhered to), while holding that the (inherently limited) human mind is always in a better position to judge in these matters.

Bill, I would like to send you a sign, a confirmation and a substantiation, from your Creator.

Our Creator, the Most Blessed, the Most High, said:

So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned,
if you are believers in His Signs.
[6:18]

I am sending you a sign from your Creator that there are things in this Creation that you just do not know about until it is revealed to you. Here is a video of some animals which have had the name of God pronounced upon them. See what happens for yourself:

safeshare.tv/w/wUbfmEBzyz

Here is a video of a chicken doing the same thing:

safeshare.tv/w/KByqcrysnR

Do you have any explanation for what you have just seen?

Although I did not doubt that this could happen, I felt that it was always possible that this phenomenon was particular to the farm or animals of the people in these videos. As you may or may not know, the coming of the Hajj season brings Muslims the ‘Eed (holiday) in which it is customary to slaughter and eat a sheep or other animal.

Our family just tried pronouncing the name of God upon the animal in a similar manner which was found in this video, and to our amazement, the sheep submitted itself in exactly the same ultra-passive manner. Since this was done the day before the festivity, it waited and waited, and nothing happened besides this passive submission!

What You Deem as Being Harsh Might Just be the Epitome of Mercy

You might be wondering why I am sending you these two videos. I am sending you this to show you that yes, if we look at this issue from the perspective of a humanists’ limited schema, an Islamic form of slaughter seems unmerciful. However, when this same issue is looked at from the perspective of what the Creator knows, we can see here that there exists a completely different reality that a humanist is completely unaware of.

So what appears to be ‘unmerciful’ to a humanist is, in reality, the highest form of mercy. There is obviously something beyond your and my comprehension going on here. Once we leave the limited perspective of subjective humanist thought and re-examine the issues which you bring up in your religious dialogues, we can see that whatever the Creator has legislated for us – even if it appears to some to be harsh – is in reality, the pinnacle of mercy. It doesn’t guide to what people perceive to be good; it guides to that which is, in reality, good in this world, and good for what awaits us in the hereafter.

Even You are a Part of God’s Ultimate Plan

Bill, do you not see that these animals submit themselves and have an innate consciousness of their place in this creation?

And unto Allah falleth prostrate whosoever is in the heavens
and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows
in the morning and the evening hours.
[13:15]

As you can see, those animals have submitted themselves to the Creator. Even if you refuse to submit yourself to the Creator, you are still part of His greater plan, whether you play your part willingly or unwillingly.

You see Bill, although you do not submit to God’s legislative will and become a believer in His revelation, you have submitted to His universal will, such that you have joined forces with those who have always opposed the prophets which He sent.

Bill, if you can pull yourself out of your inherently contradictory, ever-changing and contrived humanist paradigm, you will be able to see that everything that He has legislated is in keeping with humankind’s greater purpose – even the things that you see as being severe and unnecessary. This greater purpose I am referring to is that we sincerely single God out in all worship, love and fear Him from the bottom of our hearts, obey Him, and stay away from that which He is not pleased with.

That is what the one united religion of Submission to God (Islam) always was and truly is. It is not about Marxist-inspired concepts of toppling governing entities (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) and causing mayhem in the world (i.e. al–Qaeda, ISIS). It is about closely adhering to what all the prophets called to before people came along and changed the scriptures. When they did this, they split God’s one universal religion into three. Indeed, the words Christianity and Judaism do not even exist in the Bible, but the word Islam (submission) is the common language of all of the Prophets of God.

In short, since your starting point and the arbitrary humanist process which ensued is wrong, illogical and corrupt by its very nature, you have not been able to arrive at the correct understanding of why you are in this world and what you should really be doing. How then, can you put yourself in a position to judge others so fervently, especially when a truly liberal ideology is supposed to be about letting others choose their own way?

And most of them follow nothing but conjecture.
Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth.
Surely, Allaah is All-Aware of what they do.
[10:36]

A Time to Reconsider

There have always been people who vehemently opposed the prophets and messengers that were sent as a mercy; are you sure that when you die and are lowered into your grave, that you will have put yourself on the right side? Do you know that you wake up every day and actively wage war against the One who created you from nothing, his religion, and all of his prophets who were brothers in one religion?

I leave you with this final miracle, which is a recording of the Speech of your Creator. Listen to it, and see if it is anything like you have heard before. Reflect on the translations of the meanings (I cannot vouch for the translation or any of the channels’ content here as they are unknown to me), and see if it is calling you to that which will rectify your system of belief, in truth.

safeshare.tv/w/pdUdARBjIE

Bill, I wish you the best in your search for truth.

Sincerely,

Haneef Oliver