Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons »   About Islam Menu Sam Harris, The End of Faith, & Absence of Reason - Part 6 On page 33 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris asserts: “Anyone who says that the doctrines of Islam have “nothing to do with terrorism” and our airwaves are filled with apologists for Islam making this claim – is just playing a game with words.” If someone talks about quantum mechanics and in the process commits errors with respect to what is said, and if, then, someone comes along who actually knows something about quantum mechanics and corrects the mistakes of the first individual, this does not make the second individual an apologist for quantum mechanics. So too, when someone like Mr. Harris comes along and makes pronouncements concerning Islam or religious faith, and these pronouncements provide unmistakable evidence that Mr. Harris knows little, or nothing, about either the actual nature of Islam or religious faith, and, then, someone who actually knows something about Islam and religious faith comes along and corrects the mistakes being committed by people such as Mr. Harris, the person doing the correcting is not an apologist for Islam but someone who is calling Mr. Harris on his ignorance about such matters. Mr. Harris follows up the foregoing quote with a translation of a Quranic passage in an attempt to support his claims: “The believers who stay at home – apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment – are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him … He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death shall be rewarded by God. … The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. (Koran, 4:95-101.) “ As some Sufis might say, we are all guilty of kufur. That is, in differing ways and to varying extents, we all give expression to unbelief. A kafir, or unbeliever, is someone who hides the truth – either from others and/or from himself or herself. Since there are very, very few of us who are realized beings and, therefore, are in a position, possibly, to understand the full nature of the truth according to our inherent capacity to do so, then, in one way or another, we all are constantly hiding different facets of truth from ourselves and from others. The Quranic passage which Mr. Harris cites here mentions the term “fight”. Mr. Harris wishes to understand this term exclusively in terms of killing and waging armed conflict, and he, like many Muslim theologians, is insistent that all Muslims understand things as he does. What does it mean to fight or struggle in the way or cause of Allah? In addition, what is that cause or way for which one is to fight or struggle? The Quranic passage which Mr. Harris cites does not give specific answers to either of these questions. What it does say is that those who do make efforts in the way or cause of Allah are not the same as those who do not make such efforts. On what basis does Mr. Harris justify his narrow understanding of what fight or struggle might mean in relation to the Quranic passage at issue? In point of fact, Mr. Harris can't justify his interpretation, but he does what many Muslim theologians do with respect to this same passage – Mr. Harris demands that everyone understand this passage in the way which he has. Can one suppose that the cause of Allah is only to kill or oppress or wage armed conflict? What evidence does Mr. Harris have to support such a position? Does the cause of Allah have nothing to do with love, compassion, forgiveness, patience, repentance, honesty, charitableness, tolerance, mercy, nobility, courage, purification, wisdom, understanding, self-realization, remembrance, gratitude, dependence, piety, and so on? Can Mr. Harris prove that none of these qualities have anything to do with the cause of Allah? Can Mr. Harris demonstrate that such qualities are irrelevant to what it means to struggle in the way of or for the cause of Allah? If I use my money and possessions to feed the hungry and care for the sick, I am fighting in the cause of Allah. If I am engaged in public service and I use my money, talents, time, and energy to advance the rights of human beings, I am fighting and struggling in the cause of Allah. If I die while engaged in any of these projects of mercy, then, I have died while fighting for the cause of Allah. The one who is playing games with words is not the individual who is trying to point out the mistakes in Mr. Harris' proclamations about things Islamic. Rather, the player of word games here is Mr. Harris. He takes words – words which he doesn't even understand in their original Arabic context. Then, he imposes on those words whatever may be consistent with the agenda which he is pushing through his hermeneutical manner of engaging those words. The logic is really circular and completely self-absorbed. He wants Islam to be unrepentantly war-like, so, this is how he frames his understanding of the term “fight” or “struggle”. He, then, ends his Quranic exegesis of the foregoing passage by ending with: “The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies”, and, from this, apparently, one is supposed to conclude that it is a religious duty for Muslims to wage unending armed, murderous conflict against such unbelievers. If I choose to struggle against such unbelief through the use of scholarship or discussion or essays or podcasts or websites or books or talks, then, according to Mr. Harris I am only kidding myself about what God demands of me. Why do I not understand the Quranic passages which Mr. Harris cites in the way which he demands that I must? Mr. Harris cannot admit to the sort of possibilities which are being outlined above because were he to acknowledge their existence as credible alternatives to his forced understanding of things with respect to what it means to fight or struggle in the cause or way of Allah, then, the whole argument that he has so carefully been struggling and fighting to frame and construct in deceptive and subtle ways within the pages of his book, The End of Faith, tends to fall apart. If someone doesn't engage Islam in the manner which Mr. Harris expects – indeed, demands -- of them, then, such individuals are just playing word games, and they really don't correctly understand their faith. In effect, Mr. Harris wants to frame things in such a way that no matter what anyone says about these issues, Mr. Harris is always right, and, as a result, the central premise of his book concerning the destructive nature of faith is vindicated. Obviously, to say the least, the foregoing sort of attitude is rather self-serving on the part of Mr. Harris. Such a position is not one of well-constructed rational arguments. Rather, his position is one of oppressive fiats and truths by proclamation, and as is the case with so many Muslim fundamentalists, Mr. Harris tends to resist listening to the sound of anyone's voice but his own and those who sound like him. Anyone, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, who seeks to hide truth from people and/or themselves is an unbeliever precisely to the extent that he or she is entangled in the process of such deception and manipulation. Sincere science is opposed to such unbelief. Sincere philosophy is opposed to such unbelief. Sincere journalism is opposed to such unbelief. Sincere governance is opposed to such unbelief. Sincere faith is opposed to such unbelief. 'Unbelievers' in the sense in which the term is used in the Qur'an are the inveterate enemies of everyone – not just sincere Muslims. Every human being needs to struggle against the unbelievers assault on preventing truth from becoming known, but this manner of struggle or fighting need not be reduced or limited to, or understood exclusively in terms of, armed conflict … although there may be occasions when that, too, becomes necessary. There are many ways to fight and struggle in the cause or way of Allah, and the way and cause of Allah is nothing apart from the truth of things – whatever that turns out to be. Unfortunately, and this is so for many reasons, seeking to trod the path of truth is, indeed, a road less traveled. But, nonetheless, it is a road that, once taken, makes all the difference. On page 39 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris maintains: “As we will see in the last chapter of this book, there is little doubt that a certain range of human experience can be appropriately described as “spiritual” or “mystical” – experiences of meaningfulness, selflessness, and heightened emotion that surpass our narrow identities as “selves” and escape our current understanding of the mind and brain. But nothing about these experiences justifies arrogant and exclusionary claims about the unique sanctity of any text. There is no reason that our ability to sustain ourselves emotionally and spiritually cannot evolve with technology, politics, and the rest of culture.” The last chapter of his book is entitled 'Experiments in Consciousness'. During that chapter he becomes an advocate for, among other things a Buddhist-oriented approach to engaging consciousness. In my opinion, there is nothing, ipso facto, necessarily problematic with any of this, for it is possible that 'the Buddha' may have been one of the Prophets to whom the Qur'an alludes when it indicates that Muslims during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were only informed about some of the Prophets who had been entrusted with a Divine mission among humankind. Moreover, I have studied a little about Buddhism and during my period of research concerning Buddhism, I came across much in the way of wise teachings, insights, and spiritual understanding that resonates with the teachings of the Qur'an. The Buddhist aspect of things is really neither here nor there as far as what I want to say at this juncture of things. I mention it only in passing to help place things in context. A lot of people find what they believe to be the nature of Buddhism to be appealing because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with a Divine Being. However, I find Buddhism in this respect to be more akin to the Jewish tetragramaton touched upon briefly earlier in this commentary than I find Buddhism to be akin to constituting what might be termed a 'Godless' religion. More specifically, in the matter at issue and as has previously been noted, the idea of a tetragramaton involves four Hebraic letters – whose English equivalents are YHVH, and which contains no vowels -- which serves as a linguistic stand in, for a reality whose sacred nature cannot and should not be understood to be capable of being encompassed by words. Similarly, Buddhists are resistant to the idea of using a word like “God” in a manner which they deem to be a misleading manner of referring to that which is infinitely rich and nuanced and, as such, is capable of exceeding whatever word might be used to descriptively refer or allude to that infinite richness of Being. In both cases, sacredness transcends language. The Jewish spiritual tradition has one way of engaging such sacredness, and the Buddhist spiritual tradition has another way of engaging the issue of Being's sacred and infinitely rich nature. The foregoing approaches to Being are both different from one another, even as they resonate with one another. Both may be viable and correct ways of engaging the issue of the sacredness of Being. One can agree with Mr. Harris when he says that there is nothing about spirituality or mysticism which “justifies arrogant and exclusionary claims about the unique sanctity of any text.” However, what is problematic with what Mr. Harris says in this regard is the implication – if not outright proclamation -- of his position concerning the idea that there are no spiritual texts which possess any sanctity whatsoever. Mr. Harris points to the hermeneutical mistakes of this or that religious fundamentalist, and, then, he jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that the text in question – for example, the Qur'an – cannot be sacred because look at the mistakes and problems in which such individuals are seeking to entangle us. A text is one thing. People's understanding of that text may be quite another matter. Anyone who believes that the Qur'an can be circumscribed by words or can be rendered fully explicable through some form of linguistic exegesis does not understand the nature of the Qur'an. There is an infinite richness to the quality of the Qur'an that gives expression to a sacredness which resonates with the Jewish idea of the tetragramaton YHVH, and resonates with the Buddhist notion of an emptiness which is full, and resonates with the teachings of Jnana Yoga and Advaita Vedanta when the latter speak of neti, neti – neither this nor that. Mr. Harris claims “there is no reason that our ability to sustain ourselves emotionally and spiritually cannot evolve with technology, politics, and the rest of culture.” However, since Mr. Harris does not actually demonstrate in clear, rigorous and defensible terms what it means to truly sustain ourselves emotionally and spiritually, and since Mr. Harris does not put forth the sort of reasoned presentation that would be capable of persuading many except those who already shared his hermeneutical perspective on such matters, one actually does understand what he means when he claims that there is no reason why spirituality cannot evolve along with technology, politics and the rest of culture. What does he mean by “evolve”? What does he mean by “sustain”? Why be satisfied with sustaining ourselves emotionally and spiritually? Why not explore the idea of what it means to flourish emotionally and spiritually? What, precisely, does Mr. Harris mean by “politics”? Whose version of politics? With what purposes, methods, and values is politics to be conducted? Who is to govern and in accordance with what principles? How is technology to be used, and who gets to determine this? What does he mean by culture? How and why must spirituality evolve in a manner which is consistent with technology, politics or culture? What is his understanding of consistency, and why should anyone accept what he has to say on the matter? Mr. Harris doesn't provide much of value in The End of Faith which might be considered to constitute well-constructed, reasoned arguments with respect to any of the foregoing questions. I am sure there are those who feel that what he has done in his book is bold and brilliant, but this may be little more than a choir finding what a preacher says to be of interest. In an earlier quotation from his book, Mr. Harris maintained: “there is little doubt that a certain range of human experience can be appropriately described as “spiritual” or “mystical” – experiences of meaningfulness, selflessness, and heightened emotion that surpass our narrow identities as “selves” and escape our current understanding of the mind and brain.” There are lots of things which people might find meaningful (e.g., patriotism, winning an athletic championship, being a member of a political or philosophical movement, becoming a father or mother, tapping into the creative realm) that may surpass one's narrow sense of self, as well as escape our current understanding of the mind and brain, but this does not, in and of itself, make such meaningfulness spiritual or mystical. There are lots of things which involve heightened emotion (e.g., being part of a crowd at an athletic event or at a concert or at a rave) that may involve surpassing a person's normal sense of self and escape our current understanding of the mind and brain, but this does not, in and of itself, make such heightened emotional experiences spiritual and mystical. Mr. Harris is characterizing the ideas of 'spirituality' and 'mysticism' as a function of the way in which he believes concerning existence in the universe. He wants to eliminate the idea of a Divine Being from the discussion, and he wants to eliminate the idea of sacred texts and Divine revelation from the discussion, and he wants to eliminate the idea of faith from the discussion, and he wants to make everything a function of what he considers to be rational and evidential. In addition, he wants to make spirituality and mysticism something which will comply with his ideas concerning the nature of evolutionary progress – whatever that means -- with respect to technology, politics and culture. Once Mr. Harris has framed the discussion to his liking, with what are we left? We are left with Mr. Harris' arbitrary assumptions, presuppositions, stipulated definitions, beliefs, and biases concerning the nature of things. The minute one permits the idea of a Divine Being into the discussion, or the minute one permits the possibility of Divine revelation and sacred texts into the discussion, or the minute one permits a species of spiritual faith that is capable of intelligently engaging Being in a way which is different from reason -- even though these two forces may interact with one another at varying junctures, then, much of what Mr. Harris has to say in The End of Faith is, at the very least, of questionable value or relevance to much of anything except to Mr. Harris' species of faith concerning the nature of things. Mr. Harris wants to reduce spirituality and mysticism down to being functions of the brain and reason, as well as to make spirituality and mysticism amenable to what Mr. Harris, and others like him, want to consider progressive evolutionary forces. While one could agree with Mr. Harris that human beings should make room for the possibility of changing their understanding concerning the character of truth in any given situation whenever critical reflection, insight, and wisdom indicate this to be an appropriate step to take, nevertheless, to suppose that truth should be a limited to, or limited by, human understanding is quite another matter. Throughout his book, Mr. Harris seeks to eliminate from consideration the possibility that there could be any Divine Being or sacred text which could serve as a standard against which Mr. Harris' pronouncements concerning faith, spirituality, and mysticism might be measured, evaluated or judged, and this is the reason why Mr. Harris is so adamant, insistent, and vociferous in his attempts within his book, The End of Faith, to wipe out any and all traces of Divinity, sacred texts, and spiritual faith from the discussion. Mr. Harris is not content with just pointing out the errors committed by people of this or that species of faith – errors with which one might agree even if one did not understand the nature of the error in the way in which Mr. Harris does. Mr. Harris is not content with arguing that there are species of religious faith which give expression to toxic belief systems – an argument with which one might agree even if one does not fully accept Mr. Harris' way of going about such an argument. No, instead, Mr. Harris wants to use the mistakes that some make with respect to their species of faith, as well as cite the toxic belief systems to which some species of spiritual faith give rise, to both count as sufficient evidence and reasons as to why vanquishing all species of spiritual faith and all talk of sacred texts and all mention of a Divine Being is not merely justified, but the rational, evolutionarily progressive thing to do. In the process, Mr. Harris has lost sight of what it means to exercise critical reasoning as a venue through which to go about identifying the structural character of a given argument's errors and weaknesses – especially in relation to his own mode of exercising reason, belief, and faith. On page 46 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states: “Many Muslims ... are convinced that God takes an active interest in women's clothing. While it may seem harmless enough, the amount of suffering that this incredible idea has caused is astonishing. The rioting in Nigeria over the 2002 Miss World Pageant claimed over two hundred lives; innocent men and women were butchered with machetes or burned alive simply to keep that troubled place free of women in bikinis. Earlier in the year, the religious police in Mecca prevented paramedics and firefighters from rescuing scores of teenage girls trapped in a burning building. Why, because the girls were not wearing the traditional head covering that Koranic law requires. Fourteen girls died in the fire; fifty were injured. Should Muslims really be free to believe that the Creator of the Universe is concerned with hemlines?” People – whether Muslims or not – should be free to believe whatever they like. This is the freedom of choice which God has given to human beings. What is troubling in the foregoing quote, and it is a theme which is repeated – both implicitly and explicitly -- elsewhere in The End of Faith, is an underlying tone that tends to cast Mr. Harris in a shadowy light in which he appears to be advocating something that is not all that different from what might issue forth from the mentality of the religious police in Mecca – namely, the right to impose on people what people can and cannot believe or do. One can agree with the disgust and outrage which Mr. Harris obviously feels concerning the manner in which rioters conducted themselves in Nigeria in relation to the Miss World Pageant. One also can agree with the sense of incredulity which Mr. Harris evidently experienced in conjunction with the utter stupidity of the religious police in Mecca when they judged that head coverings were more important than human life. However, what proof does Mr. Harris have that God approved of the actions of the rioters in Nigeria or the actions of the religious police in Mecca? What proof does Mr. Harris have that God told the people in Nigeria to riot or that God told the religious police in Mecca to let the girls die because they weren't wearing head coverings? Of course, the foregoing questions are difficult for Mr. Harris because he doesn't believe in God. However, even if one were to grant, for the sake of argument, Mr. Harris' contention that there is no God, where does it say in the Qur'an that whenever there is bikini contest one is entitled to butcher people or burn people alive or riot? Even if one were to grant Mr. Harris' claim that there is no God – which I am not inclined to do -- where does it say in the Qur'an that whenever there is a fire and if girls/women are involved who are not wearing proper head covering, then, those girls should be permitted to perish. The rioters in Nigeria and the religious police in Mecca have not only taken it upon themselves to the sole arbiters in the meaning of the Qur'an, but they have arrogated to themselves, as well, the right to impose such meanings on whomsoever they please. Mr. Harris appears to wish to do this as well because he seems to want to be the arbiter of what the Qur'an can and can't mean, and he wants to force this understanding on everyone so that his arguments will make sense. Just as the rioters in Nigeria and the religious police in Mecca will not permit anyone to have an understanding of the Qur'an which is different from theirs, so too, Mr. Harris will not permit anyone to have an understanding of the Qur'an different from the one which he wishes to foist on everyone. The Qur'an indicates that God has counseled both men and women to dress with a sense of propriety. However, if people do not do this, then, the Qur'an offers no specific guidance concerning how breaches of this propriety should be handled. But what is certain is that nothing is said in the Qur'an to even hint at the possibility that an appropriate way of dealing with such situations is to riot, butcher people, burn people, or let young girls expire in a burning building. People make these choices on their own, according to their understanding of things. The Qur'an has nothing to do with such choices. People often tend to confuse their own theologies and toxic systems of belief with the actual guidance of the Qur'an. What is truly unfortunate is when people like Mr. Harris insist that no understandings of the Qur'an except what comes via the way of such toxic and pathological beliefs systems or theologies should be admitted into consideration, because by insisting on this, Mr. Harris is just helping to perpetuate the problem in order to advance his own self-serving philosophical agenda. On pages 109-110 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states: “We are at war with Islam. … We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the Hadith which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.” Technically speaking, the United States cannot be at war with anyone unless Congress has issued a declaration of war. No such declaration of war has been issued by Congress, so whatever it is that is being directed at Islam, it is not a Congressional declaration of war. I believe it is true that Mr. Harris has declared war on Islam. Or, to be more precise, Mr. Harris has declared war on what he takes Islam to be, and like the most oppressive and unreasonable of Muslim theologians, Mr. Harris insists that everyone must understand Islam and the Qur'an as he does. In the foregoing quote, Mr. Harris has made reference to the body of Hadith literature. Consequently, it only seems appropriate to mention the fact that during the latter part of his life, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered that all collections of Hadith which were being gathered by various Muslims during the lifetime of the Prophet should be destroyed. Moreover, once this edict had been given – and there actually were a number of times that this directive was issued – there is nothing in the Hadith literature which showed that the Prophet had ever changed his mind about the matter. The Prophet wanted there to be no confusion in anyone's mind and heart about the difference between, on the one hand, what revelation gave expression to in the way of Divine guidance and, and on the other hand, what the Prophet may have done or said in any given set of circumstances or conditions as a particular situational application of such Divine guidance. Historical circumstances change. Conditions change. Societies change. Technology capabilities change. The specific nature of the problems which confront the people of one temporal period may differ significantly from the specific nature of the problems which challenge another people in another timeframe, despite the existence of superficial similarities between the two historical periods. The needs of people change with changing circumstances and conditions. What may be possible and necessary when considering the dynamics of 6 billion people tends to constitute a very different sort of scenario than when one considers how to approach things in a context of less than 50,000 people. What may have been necessary to do when the Muslim community was small and under threat from all sides, including from within, is not necessarily what must or should be done now that more than 1 billion Muslims live in the world across many diverse cultures and histories. Those Muslim theologians and jurists who claim to know what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) understood or intended in any given instance of recorded action or utterance cannot prove their claims – although they certainly do present arguments in order to try to give the illusion of such knowledge. However, there is nothing in what they argue which justifies imposing their ideas about such matters on others. Certain forms of Muslim law have become like a many-headed hydra which threaten the peace and security not only of people like Mr. Harris, but the peace and security of many Muslims as well. These species of Muslim law give expression to toxic belief systems which pollute the fabric of both community and spirituality. However, none of these systems of Muslim law constitute Islam. Moreover, the people who develop such systems are not Prophets, nor are they God, nor are they necessarily approved agents of Divinity – although many of these 'creators' attempt to give the impression that what they are saying and doing comes with the full approval of Divinity. There is nothing necessarily wrong with reading the Hadiths and culling that literature in search of the sort of guidance, counsel, insight, wisdom, direction, example, or inspiration which may help a person in the context of his or her own, individual life to engage various difficulties, problems, questions, or issues. However, there is something necessarily wrong with reading the literature of Hadiths in order to find ideas which can be imposed on other individuals according to one's likes and dislikes – and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is my warrant for saying the foregoing by virtue of his directive to destroy all collections of Hadith. In effect, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was seeking to take steps to head off what eventually transpired despite his efforts to stem the tide, so to speak, in this respect. In other words, eventually, a time came following the passing away of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when people used their own sense of understanding, or lack thereof, to overturn a specific directive of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and, in the process let loose a problem upon both the Muslim world, as well as the non-Muslim world, by giving credence to the idea of establishing collections of Hadith that would come to be used in exactly the way which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was seeking to forestall and with respect to which he was, by the Grace of Allah, successful in accomplishing for several hundred years until later individuals decided that they knew better than the Prophet about the dangers inherent in developing and releasing such collections to the public. Unfortunately, Mr. Harris does not help his own cause due to the way in which he insists on proceeding with respect to Islam. What Mr. Harris claims the Qur'an prescribes to Muslims is, in fact, not what the Qur'an prescribes to Muslims. Just as some Muslim theologians and legalists have imposed their own ideas onto the Qur'an and the life of the Prophet, so too, Mr. Harris is also guilty of a similar error. Mr. Harris invents Islam in the image of his own biased understanding of things, and, then declares war on that which he, himself, has constructed. His sleight of hand in this regard is that he wants the readers of The End of Faith to accept his invention as the 'real' revealed truth concerning Islam. Moreover, he doesn't want anyone to critically penetrate the conceptual curtain which he seeks to use to hide the fact that Mr. Harris, in his role as the Wizard of Islam, is the only one who is pulling all the levers and ringing all the bells with respect to the show which he is putting on for public consumption in the form of his book. Mr. Harris wants his readers to join him in his glorious, noble project of war. He wants his readers to declare war on Islam and Muslims just as he has done. He wants his readers to declare war on spiritual faith just as he has done. He wants his readers to declare war on the idea of sacred texts just as he has done. The only problem with Mr. Harris' glorious project is that virtually everything which he has to say about Islam, revelation, sacred texts, the Qur'an, and faith is a total figment of the seemingly fertile, but ultimately sterile, system of toxic imagination which Mr. Harris is trying to pass of as Islam, spiritual faith, sacred texts, and religious duty. Mr. Harris misinforms and misleads his readers in the same way that many Muslim theologians and many Muslim legalists misinform and mislead their audience – indeed, they all use precisely the same tactic: namely, to insist that everyone must accept their interpretation of things as being the only valid approach to understanding Islam and faith. | Return to Menu | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Next | Copyright © 2008 Interrogative Imperative Institute. All Rights Reserved.