Islam and the Future of Tolerance, A DialogueBy: Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz
Why I Got This Book: I love to dislike Sam Harris, I'm really not on the same page with him as an intellectual on social issues especially when he talks about religion, he's a pretty hardcore atheist and sometimes his views come off as pretty intolerant especially referring to Islam, but every once and a while he's able to make some very interesting and valid points, especial how political correctness is really affecting social and political analysis. Another thing I respect about the Harris is the fact that he's always willing to sit down and have a constructive debate, expect with Ben Afflict, jajajajaja. And I must say it very important to read intelectuals and academic who you do not agree with because it does make you cuestions things that you sustain and helps you filter put some erroneous ideas one may have and on the other hand it helps muture others.
Now for Maajid Nawaz, I discovered him in a video post recommended to me by youtube, where he talks about the Voldemort effect, where he criticises liberals and the left in general who have no idea how to affront religious extremism. So when I found he going to collaborate on a book with Sam Harris I was fascinated to find what would come this.
 |
| Sam Harris |
• Both authors establish the need that Islam must reform to adjust to the modern world, and it must come from within the faith.
• The book does to great lengths in trying to explain that Sam Harris's views even though very critical of the regressive left, he's by no means is to be mistaken to side with the right. Especially in the extra Q & A the book has Harris explicitly explains that he finds the hard right repulsive and he wants nothing to do with being politically identified with them.
• Harris starts the conversation establishing that Islam is not a religion of peace and if extremist are given a chance they will impose sharia law, and the thing is that views are the most honest interpretation of their faith. But Maajid confronts Harris's position that Islam is not a religion of peace but just a religion, that is interpreted by its followers, with no voice of its own.
• Maajid explains that personal grievances like suffering racism isn't enough to push some into Islamism or extremism. He throws into to the mix Identity crises, charismatic recruiter and Ideological dogma that satisfies the immediate need of that person.
Maajid affirms that many Jihadist are not observant religious people they just need to find a release for their violence. Now the big question I ask to this affirmation is, does Islam as a belief system creates an easy avenue to this situation? Now Nawaz does explain that Jihadist like Islamist do get picky and choosy in the way they interact with their faith, to accommodate their needs, their political agenda. But faith is a big factor, here's where Harris adds his criticism of the regressive left that tries to ignore the faith aspect of this problem and many times acting as Muslim apologist for some hardcore Islamist. He also mentions how political correctness get in the way of any analysis or any honest debates, a true betrayal to liberalism and from my personal point of view they are tremendously reactionary driven more by passion than logic. Sam expresses that silencing these constructive narratives leaves the door open for the hard right like Neo-nazis to being the only voice to address this issues which just make everything worse.
• Nawaz explains that in the west there is an odd anti-west political undercurrent that shames anything the west does just going overboard with the anti-colonialist discourse, having an orientalist fetish, uses reverse racism, tend to side with hardliners that tend to spark internal community conflicts in their search for what is culturally authentic. Minorities do not need to integrat and must auto segragate, in the name of perserving their culture.
 |
| Maajid Nawaz |
Islamist and conservatives are also not the same. Conservative Muslims push back if an Islamist government tries to push a particular interpretation of Islam, this is the same with Jihadist. Maajid explains that initially conservative Muslims are the secret weapon against Islamist and Jihadist because it is possible that they could side with a secular government. But conservatives do take negative position referred questions of human rights, especial towards toward women and LGBTQ people.
Even though many lean on the moderate Muslim for the change in the Muslim world, they are a silent majority that are not politically active in the fight against Islamist and Jihadist, especially in the west, they are citizens that just happen to be Muslim, their religion is secondary to their identity. Therefore they do not engage politically as Muslims.
What I liked :
• Book has an interview format, with Harris asking most of the questions and Maajid answering in the audiobook it voiced by its authors.
• I found Maajid's personal story and his account of his time as a Islamist very interesting. He explains the roots of his extremism in part is due to institutional racism that he suffered growing up in the UK, and his personal grievances were capitalized by local Islamist, which he joined Hizb Ut-Tahrir. This particular group which didn't engage in terrorist activities but did push Islamist revolutionary activities around the world, focusing on military officials to join their ranks. After being imprisoned in Egypte he was reform with the help of Amnesty International that helped to free him.
• It fascinating how the book explains a worrying reality when dealing with Islamist on how they capitalize on failures, be it interventions gone wrong or not interving to help Muslims, it's almost a lose-lose situation.
• Maajid really digs in deep into the issue that some words and concepts like seculer or seculerism do not translate well into arabe and it is a chaleng inits self training to correctly explain these subjects to be able to start a proper political debate in many Muslim countries.
• Harris does press Maajid every once in a while with the poor human rights statistics in many muslim countries.
• Maajid establishes that England is a particularly complicated case refered to be a hotbed for extreamest.
• It is facinating to hear Sam's curiasity about how sinsecer reilgous fanatics are, in a series of question for Maajid and if there can be posers who play the religous card for political gain.
What I didn't like or Debatable Stuff:
• It feels like a wasted opportunity that they do not debate much in this book, you get the impression that both authors go to great lengths to clean up Sam Harris's image.
• Harris feels watered down in this book, he's not his this atheist self.
• Even though I also think Islam needs to be reformed, also think it's tremendously arrogant and over-simplistic, the way it is presented in this book.
• Sam Harris seems to not understand that moderate Muslims do not necessarily interpret that Quran literally, he does understand that moderate religious people tend to relatives their religious beliefs and tend to cherry pick what to abaid from their faith, this tends to be the fact for most people across many faiths.
• Harris establishes that the Quaran need to be edited, while Maajid goes down the path of the need for reinterpretation.
