Author Promotes Hate in New Book: Why Not Startrek?

Sam Harris and Terry Jones

Sam Harris speaks about Liabilities; but are the ideas in Islam perceived as possibly dangerous only if misinterpreted? We know the word Jihad, is important to understanding Islam, the word martyrdom comes into that as well. But what do Jihad and martyrdom mean? In Islam there are conditions which have to be met for Jihad, or martyrdom. Without those conditions you can’t say that an action, is ‘jihad’ or a death of a person is ‘martyrdom’.

I explained to someone before that martyrdom means that person has died on a battle field. i.e. been killed by an enemy. Even if he is killed by his own people by mistake, but on the battle field, he may still be considered a martyr because he was engaged in jihad at the time.

If on the other hand, his body is removed from the battlefield and later he dies off the battlefield, he is not to be considered a martyr. He would still receive a great reward for his struggle in fighting the enemy of Islam, those who want to stop Islam from spreading BY USING FORCE against the Muslims. There is defensive Jihad, and no other kind of Jihad.

Someone might fight for his religion to defend it from attacks, meaning physical threat of annihilation, not verbal attacks, or videos or cartoons. People that do such things are not threatening the physical presence of Islam or Muslims so that fighting them (a physical attack on them; again, not defensive) would not constitute jihad. To speak out against such things, to write about the verbal and pictorial attacks on Islam or the Prophet, pbuh, and so on are admirable and encouraged. But we should always present Islam in a good light with proper resources and references, as much as possible, and present our body of believers as respectable and intelligent, not as easily enraged, hostile to non-Muslims or (all of) their ideas and beliefs, etc. Yes we have problems with (some of) their ideas as well; it isn’t only the non-Muslims that have a problem with us.

Muslims have problems with some of the non-Muslims ideas and also many of their actions, for example the Americans’ support of Israel, to kill Palestinians in their own homeland, or in the “occupied territories” which means that the Palestinians are not free, nor do they enjoy the basic human rights. This is easily demonstrated in the many videos we see widespread on the internet today.

Jihad in Islam

He also mentions in the clip that Muslims are “infringing on the rights of women”. Is he only specifying the “jihadists” here, who are “blowing themselves up” or is he speaking about Muslims everywhere? Or does he mean the Muslims in Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, which is culturally more backwards in some ways than other Muslim-majority countries? (For example, marriage is still often arranged by the family, and some girls are not given the choice of who to marry).

We have to be careful on all sides of any argument, NOT TO GENERALIZE.

Sam Harris thinks Terry Jones is not the right person to speak against Islam, only because he is a religion’s spokesperson.

But if what Sam Harris is warning about Islam is NO DIFFERENT than what Terry Jones is warning about Islam, then I see no difference between the two.

Harris wants the secularists to be the ones to beat the war drums and lead the fight, for his own purposes. He doesn’t want the fight against Islam, which he claims is legitimate, based on no real proofs (in the interview, no verses of the Qur’an are examined, for example; he wants us to buy the book, maybe), to not be perceived as a “religious war” or “crusade”. It is true that if the West wants a “crusade”, which was what Bush II was accused of, then it makes Westerners - who are becoming increasingly atheists and are by and far secular more than religious - look much like religious extremists; in other words like hypocrites or just like the enemy (the Muslims who want a so-called “jihad” (for offensive purposes; to spread Islam “by the sword”) or who would blow themselves up).

We know that the ideas or ideals which are often spoken about concerning Islam, which they find intolerable and are trying to keep out of the West as much as possible, are not really ideas or ideals which are dangerous to society, but which challenge society to look at the different ways in which society can adopt modesty, virtuosity, chastity, honesty, family values, charity, etc. which are not only shared values of different Christian sects, but also Islamic ideas or ideals. Islam is about the uplifting of humans to a higher level of God-consciousness and moral and right behavior. The enemies of Islam, those critical of Islam, or those who argue against Islam without real knowledge of Islam are doing a great disservice to the general Muslims and also to the societies in which Muslims are living and striving with their non-Muslim fellows as equal participants in work, in education, in research, in government and all aspects of society, social fabric and/or social order.

Conflict Resolution

For the above reasons and many more which can be examined for the root causes of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, I encourage people of all backgrounds, religious and non-religious, all who want to have dialogue, and honest debate, but not to vilify the other side, to reexamine their most commonly held beliefs about their perceived enemy and rethink whether or not it would be better for human progress (as we are all here on this earth together and cannot just dismiss the other, or accuse others lightly of bad intentions with no real proof) if we tried to discover more common ground for cooperation; without trying to overpower or master the other side. No one has the right to force another to accept unwillingly their view of history, truth, or the meaning of life, etc. That being said, there are common grounds for cooperation and to maintain ties of friendship with those we already have some understandings, and so on, for the sake of peace if not total agreement, which is anyway an impossibility.

Societies not Monolithic

Societies will never be monolithic because every country on earth today is populated by people of different religions, ideologies or beliefs, backgrounds and even level of intellect or education, and so on. We do not have to have total agreement, either, only honesty and fair treatment. Laws must apply equally to all, which is not how many Muslims perceive laws banning Islamic practices, such as the adhan, or minarets, or wearing of Muslims clothing, specifically the women’s chosen style of dress, the burqa, or if we speak about covering or uncovering the face, etc. Another cultural-religious example, in Muslim-majority countries the adhan (call to prayer) is heard daily, but sometimes is not very loud. One doesn’t even always perceive that the prayer time has been announced by the caller to prayer in some of the masajid (houses of worship). Whether this is correct or not, that the call to prayer (adhan) is heard or not heard always, in the homes of the people varies because of the type of home (concrete in Arab countries, vs wooden and plaster constructions, in Europe, or the West), distance to the prayer hall, or house of worship, sound volume of the speakers or microphone, or if a mic or only the human voice is used. We can say that this issue could be easily solved in non-Muslim countries, the way it is sometimes solved in even Muslim-majority countries; we had in the newspaper a debate a few years ago, I don’t know if it has been resolved or not, about the adhan and how some residents didn’t want the audible adhan. This is counter to what Muslims believe, because it is good to call the prayer. Muslims believe that if one hears the prayer he should go to the prayer, not pray at home, therefore, it is better to have an adhan than to not have one, or to make the adhan audible; not too quiet for fear of bothering some residents. Why I mention that sometimes we don’t hear the adhan where I live, is because there has been the same issue, and perhaps sometimes the adhan is not as audible as other times, depending perhaps on the day, or situation.

For example, actually on Friday, the day of the Congregational prayer with a compulsory speech - the day is actually one of the important days or times for congregation (even though men should generally go to all the prayers in congregation, Jumua or Friday prayer is also stressed in Islam) we do not hear any call to prayer for the noon congregation because our masjid (house of worship) is smaller, so that particular prayer is made in a larger Masjid, and we do not hear their call the prayer from here, or only faintly can hear the call to prayer or the speech and the prayer itself(which is aloud on Friday, and a shortened prayer, only two units in congregation; but four units for women or any who pray it at home on Friday, as all noon prayers are four units, generally. That is to say there are other times when prayers are shortened or combined, but that is another subject.

Comfort Zone vs Reason

What is the solution then, to having a call to prayer in a pluralistic society, where not everyone wants to hear the adhan? I think each regional or city government can decide for themselves what they prefer, and perhaps have a referendum on the subject, because this is not an issue of religious tolerance only, although it can be seen that way too, but also must consider the comfort or desires of the larger society. On the other hand, it is for people to decide, and I believe if once a decision has been taken, (to permit a certain practice) then it should stand, no matter how the demographics of the society change, unless no more than a handful of Muslims is there to defend their position or demand such right based on the historical or past decision in a referendum, or through laws or precedents, for example, either regional or even nationwide as the case may be. For example, France banned the Burqa, is that right? Does the burqa infringe on other peoples’ rights in any way? I don’t believe so. Nonetheless, women can find other ways to cover, such as the Moroccan styles, or other styles of long flowing robes worn in many Muslim countries. The Burqa is specific to Pakistan and Afghanistan. To single out these people seems unfair, but also, it is a question which can be resolved, by allowing Muslims to at least choose other clothing they can be comfortable with, without imposing a certain style or fit, which would be against their rights and would show a higher level of intolerance. Since there are Muslims in your society, you must also try to get along with them, not demanding them to leave all of their cultural or religious norms for your sake, or to make you feel safe or comfortable. Once you or your government have introduced people to your country, and then they have families and so on, how can you then dictate that things will be different now, or change the rules on them? I find this very mean and not at all generous.

I believe societies can learn to understand the other, teach their own children tolerance, and so on. There is no reason for feelings of superiority and hate on one hand, or revulsion and fear on the other hand. We can learn to live with people who are different from us, that is how the civil rights in America moved the society forward form the dark days of open racism and calls for murder to a more peaceful and humanitarian and loving society. The difference between America in the 1800s to 1960s or 70s to today is obvious and the positive change, which still needs to continue even now, has demonstrated how race, or even religion doesn’t need to lead to divisiveness, but social cohesion can be had with respect for others point of view, dealing in justice and love for general humanity.

StarTrek Series

We see in movies like Startrek, how different races, or species can live and work towards common goals, and rarely do we hear the kind of xenophobic language in those programs that we can generally hear in other places or in other types of science fiction which deal more with hostilities or imminent threats only; Startrek imagines how different peoples deal with each other, with the complete absence if you notice of the need to belittle others’ faces, complexions, physical features, (which often look like deformities in sci-fi), clothing, female and male relationships, etc. You never hear on Startrek, the male officers calling the female officers, either bitch, or butch or anything derogatory. But I haven’t seen all the films, so I might be wrong. Generally, maybe because movie goers to such fare are younger oftentimes, that this is one of the considerations; but I saw the movie “Stand By Me” recently, and it had so much swearing and dirty boys talk that I was actually dismayed even though I still enjoyed the movie for the plot, and so on. One wonders why a movie that is basically a kids or family movie has to have that much indecent language or topics, it could’ve been toned down and the audience would still get that these are boys who’s main interest is girls with tits (I hate to say it, but there it is). It’s hard to believe that Hollywood actually put a positive spin on a series of films, but then again, sci-fi is probably the only place today where we can think positively and futuristically at the same time, if not all of the time.