Two weeks ago, Bill Maher, liberal comedian and host of the HBO show “Real Time,” concluded his program with this controversial statement conflating ISIS with the Muslim world: “President Obama keeps insisting that ISIS is not Islamic … but if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe … that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”
He implored people who found his stance appalling to reconsider their opinion, particularly if they wish to continue identifying themselves as liberals. His position disturbed me not only because he categorized all Muslims together, stereotyping and denigrating them, but also through his notion that liberal western culture “is better” than other ideologies.
Claiming that we need to take action across the world to promote western values is very dangerous. Once we embrace an attitude of cultural superiority, we risk repeating the greatest atrocities committed throughout history, some of which our own government has carried out.
That doesn’t mean we can’t have pride in our culture, though. George Orwell stated this very well by distinguishing the terms patriotism and nationalism, two words that we often confuse: “By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.” In contrast, nationalism represents the desire to impose this view on others, stamping out all resistance.
Unless Maher chose his words poorly, he argued for the latter. This may seem to devolve into an issue of semantics, but when we’re debating serious issues, clarity and precision matter. Choosing the wrong words can easily transform honest criticism into racist and dehumanizing rhetoric.
Questionable use of language extends far beyond Maher’s ignorant, arguably Islamophobic tirade. Whenever we discuss a controversy like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a subject regarding any single group of people, we need to watch how we present our arguments.
Applying Natan Sharansky’s model of what constitutes anti-Semitism across the board, also known as the “three Ds,” would be a step in the right direction. They are: demonization; delegitimization; and holding a group, in this case Muslims, to a double standard.
However, this doesn’t give any one group the right to deflect meaningful scrutiny. What it does imply is that there’s a difference between the individual and the identities that he or she holds or the society in which he or she lives and that lumping them together is racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or whatever other label fits.
In this age of turmoil, we need to condemn groups like ISIS without breeding more hatred for the majority of peaceful individuals whom these scourges end up representing. There’s no place for statements like Maher’s in the media or anywhere in our society.