Sam Harris

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular post, and that I may never hear an end to criticism for what I am about to write, I will do so anyway.

I would like to first state that I have no problem with Muslims (and really people of any religious persuasion). I simply plan on highlighting some of the most interesting points that Mr. Harris makes in this reading.

I believe that Mr. Harris' overall conclusions show an overall ignorance and contempt for modern religious thought, but in his argument there are several interesting and definitely discussion worthy points.

1) I believe that Harris has hit the nail on the head when he points to the difference between Islam and the other "People of the Book"--the inflammatory tradition that accompanies the Qur'an (the Hadith). I would be hard pressed to find similar commands in any modern written tradition of either Christianity or Judaism. While the Christians definitely had violent tendencies during the period of the Crusades, such egregious flaws in judgement and perversions of the Bible for individual gain have since dissipated into relative non-existence (yes there are still ministers on TV selling holy water and green handkerchiefs, but I think we can all agree these individuals do not compare to the widespread violence and selfishness which permitted what Harris calls "theocratic Christendom". This misconception of the "true" nature of Islam is purely the result of a seemingly widespread tradition that encourages a violent interpretation of the Qur'an.

2) A second point, which fits nicely with the first, can be derived when reading some of Harris' examples. I believe that the following quote from the Qur'an demonstrates that the official text of the religion is not the violent, "kill everyone" reality that Harris is trying to portray.
Avoid the pagans. Had God please, they would not have worshipped idols...they would still not believe, unless god willed otherwise...Therefore leave them to their own inventions...
(6:107-112)
This is reminiscent of Christianity according to John Calvin (an influential, yet relatively unknown, leader in the Protestant reformation), where the doctrine of predestination was the chosen interpretation of the Bible. This idea that God has selected Muslims to be Muslims and that they take a somewhat "hands off approach" to the infidels doesn't jive with the examples that Harris has provided, but it defiantly lends itself to the possibility that this is the predominate message in the Qur'an (which I am lead to believe not only from my contact with Muslim people, but also with my limited reading of the Qur'an). The real danger, as discussed in my first point, is in the tradition that follows the text (the lens through which it is interpreted).

When Christianity got to the point where 100% of the interpretation rested upon one organization (the Roman Catholic Church--this is not meant to be anti-Catholic in any way), a lot of injustices and lies crept into the prevailing doctrine. That is why one of the main tenants of the Protestant Reformation was to give the people a Bible in their own language so that they could balance the Church interpretation.

So to summarize this rather lengthy rant... Sam Harris is a strange character who's conclusions show ignorance, but an examination of his argument demonstrates the importance of interpretation. The lens through which all religions view their Scriptures through can severely alter the lives and actions of those who regard themselves as pious.