Sam Harris on the Reality of Islam

[Freedom_from_Chains]

By Sam Harris

UPDATE (2/08/2006 1:35 p.m. EST): Sam Harris responds to the comments and criticism of this piece. Jump to read.

Verses from the Koran
Pop Up: Quotations instructing observant Muslims to despise nonbelievers.

In recent days, crowds of thousands have gathered throughout the Muslim world—burning European embassies, issuing threats, and even taking hostages—in protest over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in a Danish newspaper last September. The problem is not merely that the cartoons were mildly derogatory. The furor primarily erupted over the fact that the Prophet had been depicted at all. Many Muslims consider any physical rendering of Muhammad to be an act of idolatry. And idolatry is punishable by death. Criticism of Muhammad or his teaching—which was also implicit in the cartoons—is considered blasphemy. As it turns out, blasphemy is also punishable by death. So pious Muslims have two reasons to “not accept less than a severing of the heads of those responsible,” as was recently elucidated by a preacher at the Al Omari mosque in Gaza.

The religious hysteria has not been confined to the “extremists” of the Muslim world. Seventeen Arab governments issued a joint statement of protest, calling for the punishment of those responsible. Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned the drawings as a “vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign” that has “hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world.” Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, while still seeking his nation’s entry into the European Union, nevertheless declared that the cartoons were an attack upon the “spiritual values” of Muslims everywhere. The leader of Lebanon’s governing Hezbollah faction observed that the whole episode could have been avoided if only the novelist Salman Rushdie had been properly slaughtered for writing “The Satanic Verses.”

Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness.

(con't) http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

[FormerRepublican]

1. I guess I don't understand why we keep making excuses for this kind of...

...thing. Some time Muslims are going to have to accept the reality that it's not OK to kill people over religion. Same thing for every other religion on this world. Human life is more valuable than that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Most Muslims agree with you, you know

It is forbidden to take lives in the way the terrorists do, and this is according to the Qur'an and the Hadiths. A majority of Muslims around the world do not condone what a small group of fundamentalists are doing. However, our words are ignored by the MSM who, I fear, are following another agenda-to create another bogeyman that people can be afraid of. Of course the furor of the West over the cartoons, for example, only makes it easier for the violent fundamentalists to argue that their way is the right way.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Then why is it not being denounced?

The original posting here and articles from other writers have time and time again asked that same question. I have never seen it answered adequately. The moderate/liberal Muslims stand with their co-religionists rather than on the side of tolerance and freedom. While I do believe that there are pious Muslims who abhor what is being done in the name of Islam, they seem strangely silent and non-existent in prominent Muslim leadership. What is the ratio of governments that condemned the cartoons vice those that have condemned the be headings? Where are the fatwas against the terrorists.

[yurbud]

11. the BBC carried a story on Muslim clerics asking why those who

threatened violence weren't arrested.

You may also recall the Muslims even in Iran held candle light vigils for us after 9/11.

If you are already down and someone insults you, it's harder to take.

Imagine the the reaction Catholics and Born Agains would have to the piss christ if they had no jobs, no rights, and no hope. They likely would have done more than call up Rush Limbaugh then.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. It is being denounced

It has been denounced, not just here but around the world. Two days ago, there were two threads about moderate Muslims in Europe doing things-one was a letter in a newspaper, another was a rally supporting free speech. And in America, literally hundreds of Muslim leaders have made statements, again and again, against violence and terrorism.

Kindly look at this thread right here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=359x47

Remember how difficult it is to get our progressive political message out in the MSM? Remember how post after post here talks about how Al Gore, Howard Dean, etc, are given little air time, even when they have important announcements to make? Well, the MSM is doing the same sort of things with statements moderate Muslims have been making against terrorism since 2001. I would suggest that any DUer who really wants to know more about Islam look to the Muslim group right here at DU to find out more about the faith and what Muslims are really like. We know better than to trust the MSM to show Democrats in a fair light-we should do the same when it comes to their depictions of Islam.

[yurbud]

16. I agree.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Link didn't work for me

I was wondering if he would cite exactly what sura and verse he's referring to. From the bit I read here, I see more of the same old same old, that is people who insist that Muslims that live, say, in the US, should be able to somehow have some influence or power over those who say they are Muslims and aspire to terrorist acts. For the umpteenth time, let me explain that Islam is not a unified religion with one specific head. There are imams and mullahs and other people of learning and rank who are respected, but there is nothing that requires any Muslim to obey their fatwas or their admonishments. Those who follow a certain religious leader are few in number compared to the total number of Muslims in the world. I will add, once again, that literally hundreds of Muslims in the US and around the world have held meetings, rallies, have issued statements condemning the violence that is supposedly done in the name of Islam (Namely because this sort of violence is condemned in the Qur'an). Right here at DU one of these statements was posted and got very few responses. The MSM has done an excellent job painting Islam as a religion of violent fanatics. I would suggest you look at the Muslim/Islam group right here at DU to get a different perspective on Islam and Muslims.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. The link worked fine for me

But maybe this part from the page will help.

This fragment of the Koran (Sura 33,
Verse 73-74) translates in part as
“...That God may chastise the
hypocrites, men and women alike,
and the idolaters, men and
women alike...” (A.J. Arberry
translation). Idolatry is at the
center of the Muslim outrage over
the satirical Muhammad cartoons.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Thank you for the citation and translation

My translation is from Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and I would like to post his translation and his notes about these verses:

33 verse 73 (there is no verse 74 for this sura in my translation)
(With the reslut) that
Allah has to punish (see note 1 below)
The Hypocrites, men and women,
and the Unbelievers, men
And women, and Allah turns
In Mercy to the Believers, (see note 2 below)
Men and womn: for Allah
Is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

Notes: Bold types are mine
Note 1:
Man's generic Covenant, which flowed from his exercising the option given him, choosing Will, Forbearance, Love, and Mercy, made it necessary that breach of it should carry its own punishment. Breach of it is here classed under two heads: those who betray their Tust act either as Hypocrites or Unbelievers. Hypocrites are those who profess Faith but bring not forth the fruits of Faith. Unbelievers are those who openly defy Faith, and from whom therefore no fruits of Faith are to be expected.

Note 2:
Those who remain firm to their Faith and their Covenant will receive the aid of Allah's Grace; their faults and weaknesses will be cured; and they will be made worthy of their exalted Destinyl For Allah is Oft-Returning and Most Merciful...

I find it most interesting that what I see most important in this Sura is the part about hypocrites, for I feel those fundamentalists who are using this to stir up anger and hatred are who the verse is talking about.

[liberalpragmatist]

4. Well, I'd say that the monotheistic faiths in general...

... are more prone to violence since they ultimately seek conversion and preach that there is only one way. Much of what people write about Islam could have been written about Christianity a few hundred years ago, and as he himself points out, there are plenty of messianic Jewish extremists.

At the same time, the Qu'ran, the Bible, and the Torah are pretty big texts with an awful lot of stuff in them; yes there are passages that promote violence and conversion, just as there are passages that promote the very opposite. Islam hasn't always been a "violent" faith and for the vast majority of Muslims, it isn't; the same could be said about Christianity and Judaism.

Everybody always says that Islam needs a "Reformation." I'm not even sure it's a valid comparison. There is NO central authority in Islam and modern political Islamism is a pretty modern phenomenon of the past 30 years. There are long historical traditions of Sufi'ism , and of liberal movements within Sunni and Shia Islam; if you were to ask Sam Harris, none of that matters.

I would also add that while it's true there aren't many Buddhist terrorists, there have been some; he himself mentions the Japanese during WWI and I would add that there are examples of Buddhist monks commiting terrorist acts in Sri Lanka. It's true that Buddhism has historically not been a militant faith and is probably the most peaceful religion around. Yet its mother religion, Hinduism, despite being completely pluralistic and non-dogmatic nevertheless has spawned plenty of Hindu fundamentalist militants who riot and commit pogroms against Muslims and Christians. I'm not going to deny that religion plays a role in promoting violence for many people; rarely, however, is religion the driving factor in any military and terrorist movement; it's almost always tied to political and social grievances and religion becomes a badge of identity.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. Islam hasn't always been a "violent" faith

and for the vast majority of Muslims, it isn't; the same could be said about Christianity and Judaism.

It certainly could be said, and many times is, but it wouldn't be true. Both of these religions have long violent and bloody histories.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Can't help but feel

that the global context of America leading the West in shitting on the Muslim world--over and over again--is the main root underneath the spreading fury about some cartoons. They see the cartoons as adding insult to injury I expect and it serves as a trigger event upon which to focus their accumulating rage. In a context of general peace and lower tensions between the West and the Muslim world, the cartoons would probably have attracted zero attention.
I think everyone should read the article "Rotten Judgment in the State of Denmark" at Salon.com, by Jytte Klausen

The cartoons started out as a gag, the kind you do when the news is slow. Flemming Rose, the paper's culture editor, decided last summer that he was fed up with what he described as the spreading "self-censorship" on matters related to Islam, so he solicited cartoonists for drawings of "how they saw the Prophet." On Sept. 30, 12 cartoons were published under the headline "Mohammed's Face." Rose cited a statement by a Danish stand-up comedian, who had complained that he was afraid to make fun of Mohammed on TV. A children's book author complained that he could not get anyone to illustrate his book about Mohammed. Another example of Islamic pieties' crushing influence on free speech was that three theaters had put on shows deriding George Bush, but none Osama bin Laden. Cartoons are an important anti-totalitarian expression, Rose wrote, and therefore the paper had asked 40 Danish cartoonists to draw their image of Mohammed. Only 12 responded. Rose implied that some of those who did not respond were infected by self-censorship.

This all would have been very well if the paper had a long tradition of standing up for fearless artistic expression. But it so happens that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers. According to a report in the Guardian, which was provided with a letter from the cartoonist, Christoffer Zieler, the editor explained back then, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." When confronted with the old rejection letter, the editor, Jens Kaiser, said, "It is ridiculous to bring this forward now. It has nothing to do with the Mohammed cartoons." But why does it not? Can you offend Muslim readers but not Christian readers? "In the Muhammed drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons," Kaiser said. "That's the difference."

And therein lies the truth. The paper wanted to instigate trouble, just not the kind of trouble it got. And in this mission it acted in concert with the Danish government. "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid," boasted the minister of cultural affairs, Brian Mikkelsen, in a speech at his party's annual meeting the week before Rose's cartoon editorial last fall. Mikkelsen is a 39-year-old political science graduate known for his hankering for the "culture war." He continued, "The Culture War has now been raging for some years. And I think we can conclude that the first round has been won." The next front, he said, is the war against the acceptance of Muslims norms and ways of thought. The Danish cultural heritage is a source of strength in an age of globalization and immigration. Cultural restoration, he argued, is the best antidote.
(And he's not talking about restoring secularism here!--kb)
The Danish government has protested that Danish Muslims and the Islamic countries have conspired in a misinformation campaign regarding both the paper's motives and the law of the land. Among the examples of preposterous misinformation are that the paper is run by the government, and that the government can do anything to regulate what is said or not said. While radical Islamists have exaggerated and exploited these themes to incite violent protest, the painful reality is that there is some truth to them. The paper is related to the government, not by ownership but by political affinity and history. And Denmark is no paragon of free speech. Article 140 of the Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."

As it happens, the author has ties to both the paper and the party, and knows what he's talking about. The intent of the paper was demeaning, provocative, hypocritical and under existing Danish law, arguably illegal. Not that such expression limiting laws are what he approves of. The article raises a number of noteworthy issues and facts and this insight, that the intent of the paper may have been to serve only its own brand of bigotted extremism, but it has had the unintended effect of serving and strengthening the extremism of militant Islamists just as well.

[Left Below]

9. Harris is no apologist.... to him, religious moderation only

aides the offending fascist rule-makers.

Let me submit this - partial Islam (or Christianity) is loathsome and harmful to innocent creatures everywhere!

"Sin" is an imaginative red herring. Fundies hate the jist or life - libertine values and Darwinism.

Fundies of every stripe - and there lukewarm supporters - need to DIEOFF in the New World.


-ISHMAEL

[yurbud]

12. Ironically, the punchline of all this tsk-tsking of Muslims will be

to kill them and take their oil.

It's the only way we can teach them non-violence and democracy isn't it?

[Solo_in_MD]

13. If it were not for oil would any of us even care what they thought

or would Islam have survived? Heard a number of interesting things about that, including a few college papers.

[yurbud]

15. considering the secular democracies and dictators of fifties

it looked like Islam was going Presbyterian--becoming an innocuous cultural appendix the way Christianity is in Europe and mainstream Protestantism is in the US.

When the people were cut off from the political process, that energy for control over their world was channeled into the mosque.

Fareed Zakaria said as much, and he's been a darling of the neocons.