Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons »   About Islam Menu Sam Harris, The End of Faith, An Absence of Reason - Part 5 On page 30 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states: “To be sure, hatred is an eminently human emotion, and it is obvious that many Muslim extremists feel it. But faith is still the mother of hatred here, as it is wherever people define their moral identities in religious terms.” Contrary to what Mr. Harris claims in the foregoing quote, faith, per se, is not the mother of hatred. One might agree with Mr. Harris that certain modalities of faith appear to be so permeated with hatred that it is difficult to know which came first, the hatred or the faith, but such instances are peculiar to the pathology of those specific situations and carry no ramifications whatsoever for the nature and character of faith. One can define one's identity in religious or spiritual terms, and in contradistinction to what Mr. Harris argues, there is nothing about this which demands that I must hate other people – and this is so irrespective of whether they do or don't share my modality of belief and faith. In fact, as I understand things – and I believe that this is central to the authentic teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and many other spiritual traditions – a central precept of true Islamic faith requires that the individual must seek to struggle against the possibility of allowing hatred to undermine one's spiritual condition, identity, or actions. Mr. Harris seems to want to accrue to himself the prerogative to define and characterize the nature of faith in any way he pleases, and, yet, even according to the standards which Mr. Harris claims to hold dear – namely, reason and evidence -- he is not justified in doing so. Empirically and rationally speaking, there are millions of people who subscribe to a form of faith which is not rooted in hatred, does not advocate hatred, and seeks to vanquish the remnants of hatred from one's internal and external life. At times, many of Mr. Harris' proclamations concerning faith and religion assume the form of an argument by fiat in which he simply declares his 'truths' without any supporting evidence or well-reasoned arguments to demonstrate the truth of what he says except among those who share his biases. At other times, Mr. Harris' proclamations concerning faith and religion assume the form of an argument in which he cites specific problematic cases and attempts to project such problems onto whatever general category may be the object of his criticism – which, in the present case, is faith and religion. In neither instance is there much of value in what Mr. Harris has to say. In fact, there actually is a potential for a great deal of destructiveness inherent in what Mr. Harris is saying because he seems to be very intent on taking whatever measures he deems necessary – even if these are completely lacking in reason or evidence – to vilify Muslims, Islam, and various other people of religious faith … quite independently of whatever such individuals may actually believe or do. Mr. Harris seems to want to argue that he is opposed to the sort of hatred being spewed forth by certain individuals who espouse a species of faith that, due to whatever set of forces and choices, is seeped in the quality of hatred. Yet, given the manner in which he often irrationally rails away at faith and religion – and, most of his book's arguments in this regard are problematically constructed and flawed in a variety of ways … some of which have been pointed out in the foregoing -- one has considerable difficulty resisting the inclination to conclude that there is a sense in which Mr. Harris appears, in a concerted way, to be trying to whip up enmity toward Islam, Muslims, and other people of religious faith throughout many facets of his book, and one wonders how this makes him any different than the 'people of faith' he seeks to criticize and in relation to which he seems to be saying: 'my way of faith (i.e., his way of thinking about things) is so much better than their way of faith.' On page 31, Mr. Harris says: “… people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man's baser nature that inspires such violence. But, I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanisms by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.” Mr. Harris is quite wrong in almost everything which he says in the foregoing quote. Of course, ordinary people can “be moved to burn old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran” because this is the same kind of thing which is done before every war when the powers that be seek to whip up an appropriate state of hysteria in the general public via the media, as well as through educational systems, so that whoever is the enemy de jour can be demonized and made ready for annihilation by the glorious armed forces of one's homeland. Not only can ordinary people be moved to burn old scholars, but ordinary people can be moved to napalm innocent civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and ordinary people can be moved to drop cluster bombs in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and wherever else this is deemed to be appropriate so that little children can come along pick up the unexploded ordinances and be blown apart. Of course ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars, just as ordinary people can be moved to kill millions of civilians during World Wars I and II, and during the Korean War, and during Vietnam, and during the first and second Gulf Wars, and during the various phases of the wars in the Balkans, as well as in Rawanda or Darfur or South Africa. Of course ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars, just as ordinary people can be moved to destroy Iraq's infrastructure, not once but several times, so that children can die of starvation, disease, and from 'smart bombs' that turn out not to be so smart after all. Of course ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars, just as ordinary people were moved to commit genocide against Native peoples. Of course ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars, just as ordinary people can be moved to burn, hang, rape, beat, and torture a people because of their skin color. Of course ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars, just as ordinary people can be moved to commit atrocities against their fellow countrymen during civil wars. There have been a number of studies which have been conducted in conjunction with World War II, Vietnam, and the Gulf War with respect to people's readiness to kill or harm other human beings. Not surprisingly, these studies found that the majority of people, on their own, really have no interest in harming other human beings. They have to be moved to do this. They have to undergo a process of indoctrination and propaganda so that they will comply with the directive to kill other human beings – not necessarily because of religious faith but because they are told that killing and destroying a given people is their patriotic duty in order that the vested material and financial interests of the power elite may be protected. Moreover, Mr. Harris is equally wrong when he claims that ordinary people cannot be moved to celebrate the violent deaths of their children. This sort of thing is done every Memorial Day and every Veterans Day. Parades are held, flags are waved, people cheer and clap, speeches are given about the glories of sacrificing one's life for one's Fatherland or Motherland or Homeland or out of patriotism. One thing about which Mr. Harris is partially correct in the foregoing quote is that ordinary people can't be moved to do such horrible things “unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe”. However, a “religious faith” that has gone horribly wrong is not the only sort of improbable belief concerning the nature of the universe which is capable of bringing about such a state of affairs. Improbable beliefs concerning the efficacy and correctness of various kinds of economic systems (including both communism and capitalism), or improbable beliefs concerning the correctness of various kinds of political systems (including the sort of system which is democratic in name only), or improbable beliefs about the correctness of various kinds of eugenic philosophies, or improbable beliefs concerning the exclusively materialistic and physical nature of the universe are all fully capable of moving ordinary people to do harm to other human beings who think or believe differently from the former individuals. In the foregoing quote Mr. Harris argues that “because most religions offer no valid mechanisms by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.” Mr. Harris seems to be absolving the individual from having any responsibility, on his or her own authority as a human being, to observe, explore, investigate, reflect, critique, test, understand, and make evaluations concerning what other people are saying about the character of certain 'core beliefs' – irrespective of whether these core beliefs involve religion, economics, political systems, philosophy, or science. I am condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of my predecessors only if I abdicate or cede my moral, intellectual, and existential authority to those individuals. Spiritual faith does not condemn me to be an idol worshiper of my predecessors unless I permit myself to be governed by something other than a sincere faith which is always engaged in a rigorous process of inquiry, questioning, reflecting, struggling, contemplating, meditating, and re-evaluating my own understanding as well as the understanding of others concerning this or that issue. Sincere faith is dynamic and creative. Sincere faith is not static and sterile. Sincere faith can be modified as one gains new insights and understanding concerning one's relationship with Being. Sincere faith is tested every day in the crucible of life as one seeks to make sense of, and be able to effectively deal with, the many difficulties, problems, questions, possibilities, and horrors which are given expression through lived existence. Ordinary people can be moved to burn old scholars – as they can be moved to commit all of the other atrocities which have gone on, both with respect to recorded or unrecorded events, throughout history -- because such people actually do not possess any kind of sincere faith. What people have who can be moved to do such terrible things is a toxic belief system, and more often than not, such people live within a context that has various kinds of social institutions, military professionals, educational systems, media outlets, vested economic and political interests, and a power elite who are all too willing to help individuals develop, become committed to, and become lost in such toxic belief systems. As is the case with respect to much else that Mr. Harris writes within his book, The End of Faith, he has a penchant for oversimplifying matters and, in the process, is inclined to be very reductionistic in his oversimplifications. For Mr. Harris, the villain is always religious faith because this is what his own brand of philosophical, political, economic, and rationalistic faith demands that he conclude. In reality, the villain is toxic belief systems. A toxic belief system is any system of beliefs that operates in accordance with problematic systems of inquiry which lead one to claim that one has a right to harm other human beings because they believe differently than an adherent to such a toxic belief system does. A toxic belief system is any system of beliefs which claims that adherents of such a system are justified in torturing, terrorizing, exploiting, killing, maiming, manipulating, depriving, experimenting upon, deceiving, destroying, or harming other human beings for any reason whatsoever. A toxic belief system is any system of beliefs which seeks to deny basic human rights to other human beings. All toxic belief systems are rooted in a pathological form of faith. However, not all species of faith are either necessarily pathological in nature, nor are all species of faith necessarily generators of toxic belief systems. When understood from this perspective of toxic belief systems, there is a great deal of truth in what Mr. Harris says in his book. However, when Mr. Harris seeks to insist that his ideas about all species of faith are correct – and the irony of the matter is that Mr. Harris seems to have little insight into the dynamics of sincere faith despite having written a book which purports to be all about such phenomena, then, Mr. Harris comes perilously close to giving expression to a toxic system of beliefs himself. On page 32 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris gives several translated passages from the Qur'an – namely: “Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home, an evil fate.” (Koran 9:73) “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” (Koran 9:123) Mr. Harris follows up on the foregoing quotes by saying: “The reality that the West currently enjoys far more wealth and temporal power than any nation under Islam is viewed by devout Muslims as a diabolical perversity, and this situation will always stand as an open invitation for jihad, insofar as a person is Muslim – that is, insofar as he believes that Islam constitutes the only viable path to God and that the Koran enunciates it perfectly – he will feel contempt for any man or woman who doubts the truth of his beliefs. What is more, he will feel that the eternal happiness of his children is put in peril by the mere presence of such unbelievers in the world.” Let's start with the Quranic verses. In the first translated passage, the Prophet is enjoined to make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and do so in a rigorous manner. What does any of this mean? Who is to be considered an unbeliever and who is considered to be a hypocrite? How does one go about deciding this -- especially in view of the fact that the Qur'an enjoins one to accept Christians and Jews as being people of the book, and, in addition, in light of the fact that the Qur'an indicates there have been many Prophets who have been appointed for purposes of spiritual guidance, and, yet, not all of these individuals have been identified by God in the Qur'an, so, one might want to exercise some caution with respect to whom one is claiming to be an unbeliever? What is the nature of the war which is to be made with respect to such individuals? What does it mean to deal rigorously with such individuals? Is the injunction being given to the Prophet meant to be a universal proscription or was it something that was intended to be limited to a particular time, place, and set of circumstances? Mr. Harris investigates none of these issues because, apparently, this would interfere with what he is trying to accomplish in his book which is – to put it succinctly – to skew and frame the discussion of faith in a negative manner. In the roughly ten years of war that occurred after the Prophet had been given Divine permission for Muslims to defend themselves against those who sought to destroy the Prophet and the small Muslim community [and in the first thirteen years of the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) no such permission had been given] despite the fact that many unbelievers and hypocrites lived in Mecca and the surrounding areas], some 300-plus people (this includes both sides) lost their lives as a result of the hostilities. Furthermore, part of the etiquette of war observed by the Muslims at that time was done in accordance with the following limits: one could not kill children, women, old people, or non-combatants; one could not destroy the means of livelihood of those against whom one was fighting; one could not fight against those with whom one had signed a treaty as long as those people abided by the conditions of the treaty, and it made no difference whether, or not, those people were Muslim. In addition, the only kind of war which the Prophet and Muslims were permitted to fight were defensive wars – wars to defend the community against armed attacks. The foregoing comments also have relevance to the second Quranic passage cited by Mr. Harris concerning the injunction for believers to make war on the infidels among them. For example, which believers are being addressed? Is it all believers who existed and ever will exist until the end of time, or is it only a specific group of believers – perhaps either the ones who were present at the time of the manifestation of that particular portion of revelation or the ones who lived during the times of the Prophet? How does one determine the answer to such a question? There are two other points which bear upon these issues. First, the two Quranic passages which Mr. Harris cites come from Surah Tauba or Repentance. This is the only surah of the Qur'an which does not begin with: “In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful”, and, as a result, maybe this absence modulates, in various directions, the manner in which the two given verses are to be understood. Secondly, many Sufis have commented on the idea that waging war on the infidels near one is intended to refer to the need of each individual to wage war against the infidel – the ego or false self or nafs – within, and the passage is not necessarily meant to be an injunction to wage war against other individuals. From this perspective, there is an infidel within each of us, and we should each busy ourselves with struggling against that infidel, and if we sincerely are engaged in such a struggle, one is unlikely to have much time or energy left over to wage war against anyone else or become obsessed with the issue of who it is that actually can be considered to be an infidel. Mr. Harris makes the same mistake as do so many would-be Muslim fundamentalists and literalists. He assumes he knows who is being alluded to as an infidel or as an unbeliever when these terms appear in the Qur'an. I have faith that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) understood the nature and character of the Quranic references which Mr. Harris cites. I have no faith that either Mr. Harris or Muslim fundamentalists understand what is being said in the Qur'an in this respect. Contrary to what Mr. Harris claims, the fact that “the West currently enjoys far more wealth and temporal power than any nation under Islam” is not seen as a “diabolical perversity” because people in the West are considered to be 'sinners and infidels'. In fact, unfortunately, all too many Muslims are seeking to garner the same kind of wealth and power for themselves. God gives to whomsoever and whatsoever Divinity pleases. On the other hand, an individual may find their way to what God gives through either just or unjust means. If there is anything of diabolical perversity about the sort of wealth and power to which Mr. Harris alludes in the foregoing quote, this is likely to have more to do with the oppressive, exploitive, unjust, and destructive means through which such power and wealth may have been obtained – and this is as true for the Saudi royal family or other Muslim dictators as it is for the corporate oligarchs of the West. When matters of power and wealth are involved, Muslims are every bit as capable of committing sin in relation to the accumulation of that wealth and power as are non-Muslims when they seek such things through impermissible means. Just as it does not profit a person to gain the whole world but lose one's soul in the process, so too, there is much truth to the words attributed to Jesus (peace be upon him) in the New Testament when he is reported to have said: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into heaven.” Anyone of sincere faith takes seriously the issue of doing justice to all concerned when it comes to, among other things, matters of power and wealth. As noted earlier, Mr. Harris, claims that “insofar as he believes that Islam constitutes the only viable path to God and that the Koran enunciates it perfectly – he will feel contempt for any man or woman who doubts the truth of his beliefs.” Islam means submission. To what is one to submit? One is to submit to the truth. What is the truth? This is an interesting, complex, subtle, and difficult question. A lifetime does not provide sufficient opportunity to exhaust the truth, let alone enable one to understand and apply it exactingly and fully. In fact, this is precisely why one needs some species of sincere faith in order to assist one in life given that almost all of us do not understand everything we need to know in order to encompass the full truth. Sincere faith lies somewhere between complete ignorance and full knowledge. Sincere faith is a bridge, of sorts, between what is known and what we feel or sense or intuit or make judgments about how what is known is connected to all that is not known. To say, as Mr. Harris does, that someone “believes that Islam constitutes the only viable path to God” is really nothing more than a tautology. If God exists, then, God exists in accordance with whatever is true concerning the nature of that existence. If God exists and if one is to find a path to God, then, that path must give expression to the truth of things concerning the relationship of human beings to God. The truth of the path must reflect the truth of God's nature. One needs truth to find truth. In other words, submission to truth is the only viable path to the truth. Duh! Now, where does this leave us? If, in accordance with Mr. Harris' aforementioned manner of framing things, someone believes that the Qur'an enunciates what Islam is in a perfect manner, to what does this commit one? How is one to understand the nature of the perfect manner in which the Qur'an enunciates the truth of Islam – well, presumably, the truth must lead us to such an understanding. This is where one comes to Robert Frost's famous starting point of his poem 'The Road Not Taken' when “two roads diverged in a yellow wood”. Human beings must choose the road which is to be taken and the road which is not to be taken. This choice can be made through toxic belief systems or it can be selected through sincere faith. Only time will disclose the differences which will arise as a result of the choices made in conjunction both with respect to the roads taken and not taken, and, indeed, this choice is made each and every second of our lives. Will we choose truth, or will we choose toxicity? Everybody may have an opinion about which is which, but only truth knows the reality of the situation. Everything rests on the choices we make … on the roads we choose to take and on the roads which are not taken. Why would any person of sincere faith feel contempt for other human beings who are faced with such overwhelmingly important choices but who may go about things differently in relation to the roads chosen? One might as well have contempt for the human condition. Alternatively, why would anyone of sincere faith have contempt for someone who may have taken the wrong road and ended up in a toxic dump of beliefs? All one needs to do is remember the many times in which one may have chosen to go down a given road only to realize that a mistake had been made with respect to the original choice, and, as a result, one needs another opportunity to choose again and go down a different road. If one wishes to have contempt for the mistakes others may have made with respect to the road taken, then, to be consistent one should have contempt for the many times one has taken a wrong road in one's own life … the one which has made all the difference but in problematic ways. In either event, empathy and compassion are better responses to someone's taking a wrong road than is contempt. Contempt has a destructive tendency to cut people off from one another, whereas empathy and compassion link people together. Contempt undermines community, whereas empathy and compassion enhance community. Truth is not one thing or one way or one path. Truth is indefinitely, if not infinitely great, and truth is multifaceted, multidimensional, and non-linear in character. Moreover, there is a sense in which, like Rome, all roads may lead to truth … although not necessarily the full and complete truth. On the other hand, who among us can convincingly claim that he or she possesses the full and complete truth? Contrary to what Mr. Harris claims, a person of sincere faith – whether Muslim or non-Muslim – need not have contempt for anyone who doubts the truth of that faith. The fact of the matter is, the doubt someone else harbors concerning another person's faith doesn't necessarily say anything more about the situation except that someone has doubts about someone's faith. One can choose to listen, or not, to those doubts. One can choose to reflect upon, or not, those doubts. One can consider those doubts relevant, or not, to the character of one's faith. One can revise one's understanding, or not, in accordance with such doubts. If the person who has doubts about some other individual's faith is correct in the character of those doubts, then, the former individual may be benefiting the person who carries a mistaken sense of faith if the latter person pays attention to what is being said. If the person who has doubts about some other person's faith is incorrect in the character of those doubts, then, the doubts are irrelevant to everything except the individual who harbors them – although there could be problematic ramifications if the person with such doubts tries to interfere in the lives of others who hold a faith about which the individual has doubts. Is the person voicing doubts correct or incorrect with respect to the nature of their doubts? This brings us back to choice and the roads taken. Are there some Muslims whose species of faith is accurately described by what Mr. Harris is saying in his foregoing remarks? I'm sure there are, but I also know that I have met some Muslims, along with individuals from other faith traditions, who do not at all fit in to the way in which Mr. Harris is seeking to frame things. Finally, Mr. Harris claims in the quote with which this present discussion began that any Muslim “will feel that the eternal happiness of his children is put in peril by the mere presence of such unbelievers in the world.” Mr. Harris gives too much power and credit to the “unbelievers” of the world. Islam teaches that decisions concerning someone's 'eternal happiness' rest with God. An unbeliever cannot imperil someone's eternal happiness unless God permits an individual to become so imperiled. Moreover, each person of sincere, spiritual faith has his or her own responsibilities in this matter. If such an individual cedes her or his moral and intellectual authority to anyone else – whether these other individuals are believers or unbelievers in some broad sense of these terms – this is when people tend to become entangled in difficulty. Unbelief is not a contagious virus that infects one whether one wishes this to be the case or not. Unbelief, like belief, is a choice. The mere presence of unbelief does not make someone an unbeliever. One has to actively choose to come under the sphere of influence of such a belief system. If someone who is not a believer comes along and says that prayer, fasting, charity, chanting, spiritual purification, and pilgrimage have no value, or such an individual says that God, angels, revelation, prophets, heaven and hell are nothing more than childish myths, and, in response to all of this, one stops observing and believing in Islam, then why shouldn't the latter individual accept responsibility for whatever ensues from the choice which has been made to cede one's moral, spiritual, and intellectual authority to the former sort of individual. Naturally, the person who seeks to sway another individual away from the latter's species of faith has his or her own responsibility in this matter, but I think the person who has ceded her or his spiritual authority to another individual should stop placing all the blame on the unbeliever and take a look in the mirror in order to identify who the real culprit is in such a situation. If the Muslim world is having problems with the presence of unbelief in its midst, then, perhaps the Muslim world should take a look in the mirror and try to figure out where it has gone wrong with respect to its understanding of what it professes concerning the nature of Islam and the Qur'an. Without wishing to say that countries do not have the right to defend themselves against imperialistic, colonialist, or militaristic adventures into their lands, nevertheless, the real problems and challenges which confront the Muslim world have nothing to do with the presence or absence of unbelievers in its midst but, rather, has to do with the manner in which all too many Muslims have ceded away their moral, spiritual, and intellectual authority to an array of religious scholars, theologians, imams, muftis, and political leaders who have taken them far away from what Islam actually enjoins one to pursue – namely, the truth. | Return to Menu | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Next | Part 7 | Copyright © 2008 Interrogative Imperative Institute. All Rights Reserved.