It was after reading Abhinandan’s article that I actually went and listened to some of Bill Maher’s jokes on Islam. It made me realise one thing immediately – that I had no solid viewpoint on Islam. My thoughts on Islam were vague, strung-along buzzwords one finds associated with Islam in the liberal press. It forced me to evolve my perspective and actually read up on the subject and listen to more divergent views. It was after this that I found myself at a crossroads with Maher’s views. I found myself in both agreement as well as disagreement with many of his viewpoints. Let me tackle both stands separately.

AGREEMENT

I, like you, agree with Maher that liberals should stand up for liberal principles. In this age of ever increasing political correctness we find ourselves unable to even have a conversation about Islam without being viewed as racist or bigoted.

Pointing out the inherent backwardness of some of the religion’s basic premises is frowned upon. Anytime anyone so much as mentions the rights of women in Islam or the treatment of homosexuals in Islam there’s immediately this chorus that shouts “It’s a different culture. We must respect other cultures. Shhhh!” Why shouldn’t bullshit be called out for what it is – bullshit? Why can’t we as a race say that the Purdah system is ridiculous and tramples on women’s rights?

Bill Maher, to his credit, calls out bullshit when he sees bullshit and more liberals should be like him. He is, to my mind, an equal opportunity offender. He goes after Christians just as much as Muslims.

DISAGREEMENT

Once had satisfied myself that Bill Maher did indeed crack the jokes he did with the right intentions I then turned towards the comedy of the jokes. Did I find the jokes funny? And herein I realised that even though the audience was laughing, I couldn’t laugh at some of jokes he cracked. It felt wrong to laugh at them. I tried to identify why exactly some of his Islamic jokes left me feeling a bit off.

To explain that I must explain what I view comedy as. Comedy, in my opinion, is only funny when the comic manages to place himself and his audience in a position of weakness and the object or target of his joke in a position of strength. The idea of punching upwards. Now, when the comic and his audience are in the position of strength then the joke loses its humour. A strong person “crushing” a weak person is not a funny idea. It can’t be. Comedy should come from a place of weakness.

Why are Christian jokes funnier or at least more acceptable than Muslim jokes? It’s because the Catholic Church is seen as a center of power, primarily because it was. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was the State. Even Kings had to bow before the church. So it has an aura of strength. Moreover the reformation has already taken place in Christianity. It has already become a more tolerant religion. Their motto changed from “Burn all the heretics and witches” to “forgive them father for they do not know what they do” and “I think you’re wrong and I’ll pray for your soul”.

Muslims on the other hand are never associated with an aura of strength. Anytime a Liberal thinks of a Muslim they think of them in a position of weakness. Because, to the Liberal’s mind, they don’t have freedom of speech, freedom to change religions, etc. Theirs is a religion which does not tolerate dissent. And, of course, atheists view every religion as being, inherently, in a position of weakness.

With that now established lets now look at how that ties into Maher’s comedy. Bill – an atheist – and his audience – primarily fellow Atheists and Christians – cracks jokes about Islam and Muslims. See the problem? Unless Bill Maher manages to swap the positions around, his jokes will always feel wrong. To his credit Bill Maher does manage to put Muslims in a position of strength and crack very funny jokes at their expense, but it’s extremely hard and more prone to going wrong than right. This is the same reason it’s hard for white people to crack black jokes, hard but not impossible, mind you. Think about how jokes on Saudi billionaires tend to be funny. Why? Because they are in a place of strength. It’s the same reason jokes about terrorism can be funny – because they make fun of terrorists who start out in a position of strength due to the mindless violence they can inflict.

I also disagree with Maher when he believes that there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam itself. He believes this to be a problem exclusive to Islam. One could easily argue that the Old Testament is just as bloody as the Quran. The key difference lies in the interpretation of the books. Christianity now interprets the Bible far less literally than before (exceptions being homosexuality, etc.). Even though it is written in their books that if a woman consummates a relationship outside of marriage she should be put to death, they no longer follow that, essentially because the culture changed. The viewpoints evolved.
Islam however follows the Quran more literally. Hence they are less tolerant. But what is key to understand is that merely because religion A did not evolve as fast as religion B, it does not grant religion B the right to point and laugh at religion A for not evolving as fast.
Religion B being Christianity, Hinduism, atheism and anyone else who sees themselves as having superior viewpoints relative to Islam. The end goal should be to get Religion A to where everyone else is.

Think about why poor jokes just aren’t funny. It’s very hard to make fun of the poor. By definition they are in a position of weakness. It takes a very intelligent comic to somehow elevate them to a position of strength. But rich person jokes? Jokes on corporations? They’re every comic’s bread and butter. It is this dynamic of strength and weakness which means that although I concur with Maher (and thus to some extent Abhinandan), that I simply do not find his views on Islam funny.