To me it is the equivalent of "If you cannot convert them, kill them." It is also interesting to note that Harris started writing the book on Sept 12, 2001. I tended at first to give him a pass as having been traumatised by the events (who among us who was on the Eastern seaboard that day wasn't?). Since then, however, I have been less lenient. His claims to be a budding scientist fly in the face of his admitting, at the Beyond Belief gathering, that he had no knowledge of peole from other religions committing suicide bombings (Buddhists as Kamikaze pilots, Christians in Palestine/Israel, etc). His lack of wide study makes his claims of Islam as Death Cult suspect at best. His conflating of Qutbism as being representative of The Muslim World has definite political reasons.
Even in Letter to a Christian Nation he ends up "Standing with" the Christian fundamentalists against the Islamic hoards. How is that rational? "Kill them instead" does not advance anything reasonable.
I bought End of Faith in hopes of its being a call to reason. Imagine my disappointment! It is sad. It is also weird to me how he was just suddenly *there*. This is his first book, he spent (previous to this) about 20 years studying various eastern and western philosophies and has made statements in support of esp. Not a rationalist, nor a scientist, but resting on the Authority thereof. Fraud, I say!
Dawkins is another story. I think he has many good points, and is indeed approaching from a scientific strandpoint, and with the experience in scientific methods to back up his claims. It has been said that you cannot prove a negative- which is true- but you can eliminate claims by finding out, for instance, what does cause things to happen.
Daniel Dennet is pretty good in the non-religious ethics department, if you get a chance.
Harris is just the loudest. This does not mean he's reliable.