The world is a complex place. This should be a no-brainer. Yet I repeatedly hear intelligent people make simplistic analyses about the world. Sam Harris gave a very black-and-white analysis of the conflict between Israel, Hamas, and Iran in his latest podcast.
His analysis is extremely reductionistic: why do violent Muslims act violently? Because of certain Muslim beliefs, e.g., martyrdom and paradise in heaven. I assume this is true for a subset (how big, I have no idea) of violent acts committed by Islamists, and that the belief in martyrdom carries motivational power. This should not be neglected. For instance:
“On 18 April 1983, the Lebanese Shiite organization Islamic Jihad (the precursor of Hezbollah5 – the Party of God) carried out suicide attacks on the US embassy in West Beirut, killing sixty-three staff members. On 23 October the same year the headquarters of the US and French forces in Beirut were attacked by suicide bombers, resulting in the death of 298 military men and women.
According to Sa ad-Ghorayeb, these suicide attacks took place because Khomeini, the supreme Shiite leader or marja‘a, 6 authorized them. The ‘‘martyrs’’, as he termed them, at the US Marines compound ‘‘saw nothing before them but God, and they defeated Israel and America for God. It was the Imam of the Nation [Khomeini] who showed them this path and instilled this spirit in them.”7”
Source: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-869_4.pdf
However, Harris does not want to recognize why such beliefs may become attractive in the first place. Beyond individual reasons, there is a host of social, political, religious, and economic factors, which I believe are fairly well documented.
Furthermore, there are relevant questions that Harris doesn’t consider: what does martyrdom actually mean in Islam? Is suicide (bombings) allowed, and if so, only under certain conditions? Is it permissible to kill civilians?
“There is no place for terrorism in Islam and that suicide bombings are a flagrant contradiction of the Quranic injunctions. We will now further explain this.
The practice of suicide bombing is seen in many parts of the world and attempts have been made to legitimise such conduct. A careful study of the sources of Islam shows that there is no basis for such action and that these tactics are absolutely out of the question for true followers of Islam. Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran
– And kill not your own selves. Surely Allah is Merciful to you. (Ch. 4.- v. 30)
– …and cast not yourselves into ruin with your own hands… (Ch. 2.- v.196)
– Islam strictly forbids the killing of innocent, non-aggressive people: no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors. (Ch. 2.- v.194)
These three verses alone should have been sufficient to prevent Muslims from crashing airplanes into buildings or from sending suicide bombers to blow up innocent civilians.
So why do they do it? Unfortunately, the Muslims are encouraged to do these unIslamic acts through the promise that if they do it; then they will be regarded by Allah as being martyrs and will go straight to Heaven. But this is a false promise and such acts will only lead a person to Hell. We see an example of this in the Ahadith.”
Source: https://www.alislam.org/question/is-suicide-allowed-in-islam/
Also, when speaking about the causes of violence and extremism in the Middle East, I am not saying that all the ills and violence in the region, or against the West, can be solely explained by foreign intervention, although this obviously plays a role in complex ways. That would also be reductionistic:
“In his book A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the emergence of Islamism, Dr S. Sayyid describes five arguments that explain the spread of what is commonly called Islamic fundamentalism, Islamism or militant Islamism:
Islamism is a response to the failure of Arab leaders to deliver meaningful outcomes to their people.
Lacking opportunities for political participation, Arab citizens turned to mosques as public spaces for political discussion. As a result religion became the language of politics and of political change.
Post-colonialism also failed the Arab middle class, as the ruling elite continued to hold power and wealth.
Rapid economic growth in the emerging Gulf States increased the influence of conservative Muslim governments. At the same time, the expansion of the oil-based Gulf economy brought about uneven economic development, the response to which was growing support for Islamism as a mode of expression for internal grievances.
Finally, the spread of Islamism has also been due to the effects of cultural erosion and globalisation contributing to a Muslim identity crisis.”
Source: https://theconversation.com/is-it-fair-to-blame-the-west-for-trouble-in-the-middle-east-32487
I don’t know enough about Islam, political Islam, or the Middle East. I am learning. But what I do know is that Islam, like any other religion, is not a fixed, singular doctrine. It is a tradition interpreted by over a billion people across different cultures, histories, and political realities. That alone should make us cautious about sweeping claims.
Like all religions, Islam is open to interpretation—and, consequently, to distortion by extremists. This is not unique to Islam; it is a structural feature of any belief system with authoritative texts and moral claims. The question is not whether distortion happens, but under what conditions certain interpretations gain traction.
Therefore, when a person like Sam Harris talks about Islam as if it is one thing—suicide bombings, martyrdom (in his narrow understanding), hatred—I feel provoked and frustrated. Not because I have a special affinity for Islam—I don’t—but because this collapses a complex, internally diverse tradition into a caricature. It explains too much too easily, and that is usually a sign that something is off.
It also subtly shifts the explanatory burden. Instead of asking why certain interpretations emerge, spread, and motivate action in specific contexts, the answer is reduced to: “the doctrine itself.” But doctrines do not act. People do. And people act within social, political, and historical environments that shape how doctrines are understood and used.
I think it is entirely legitimate to criticize and question aspects of Islam and the Quran—just as it is with Christianity, Judaism, or any political ideology. Some interpretations are clearly more compatible with pluralism and non-violence than others, and it is reasonable to say so. But criticism requires precision. Otherwise, it quickly turns into generalization.
This does not make one an Islamophobe. Just as criticizing Israel, as a political and religious state, does not automatically make one an anti-Semite. These labels should be used carefully; otherwise, they lose meaning and shut down necessary discussion.
Image source: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/religion/de-vigtigste-ting-vide-om-islam
