Dan Peterson vs. Robert Spencer

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Dan Peterson vs. Robert Spencer

Post by dartagnan »

A few days ago Dan took everyone by surprise and engaged Robert Spencer in a radio debate. Spencer is the author of numerous books on Islam, his recent being "Truth about Muhammad, the Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."

Dan Peterson wrote me off years ago for saying Islam was the most intolerant religion. He refused to discuss anything about Islam with me. Yet here he is discussing it with Spencer. Oddly enough, Spencer says the discussion went smoothly because it seemed Dan agreed with just about everything he said. Over at MAD Dan said he wished he had said different things and clarified his positions better. He also said, strangely enough, that he had no idea that it was supposed to be a "debate."

In any event, I emailed Spencer and asked him if he would be interested in picking up where they left off in an online debate of written format. He said he would love to, and that he would pitch it to frontpagemagazine.com. I asked Dan if he would be OK with it and it seems he is declining.

Why?

I don't get it. First he said “As always, there are points one wishes one had made, places where one wishes one had been clearer and more eloquent, and directions in which one wishes that the conversation had gone. Still, on the whole, it wasn't a bad discussion.” Well, now he has the opportunity. So why not do it?

Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB. This makes no sense to me. In my experience, nothing rewards glibness more than a book review, where someone is given a podium to speak and nobody can respond. He said he wouldn't debate McCue because he didn't like the man, but now he says he doesn't like debates. So why does he do debates at all then?

I think this would be a great opportunity for us to find out where Dan stands on certain controversial issues, and understand his logic for why he believes what he does. It is a golden opportunity in my opinion. I hope he changes his mind and takes it.

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=283

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

That's too bad. I would have enjoyed seeing such a discussion/debate. But then, heaven knows glibness has not been a rare commodity in these fora.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

The debate they had is supposed to be available online this week. It lasted an hour I believe.

User avatar
Bond...James Bond
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm

Re: Dan Peterson vs. Robert Spencer

Post by Bond...James Bond »

dartagnan wrote:
Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB.


Since when does Dan not like debates? How many thousands of posts has he racked up online in the past decade?

Rewards glibness? Doesn't Dan realize that people have read his postings before? He's the King of the pithy comeback.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07

User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Post by gramps »

He's not seemed to have a problem with "glibness" before now, has he? Maybe he is turning over a new leaf. the board really did get to him, it seems.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Actually, as I recall, DCP declined to do the McCue debate based on his assumption that McCue would "misunderstand everything" that he said. (Which, let's face it, is Prof. P.'s usual excuse when he backs out of debates.) And I agree with you wholeheartedly, Dart, that hiding behind the aegis of FROB is pretty weak, since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.

User avatar
richardMdBorn
GPS, inc.
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:05 pm

Post by richardMdBorn »

I think that Dan knows that he would either:

A) Get clobbered by RS or
B) Have to backtrack on his statements about the "religion of peace".

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Mister Scratch wrote: since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.


Having been through the peer review process at Farms Review, and at other institutions, I can tell you the process is the same. When I selected peer reviewers for a nationally-prominent law journal, I handpicked them to make sure they were competent and would reflect my views without a whole lot of angst. FARMS Review was the same.

Tell me what your personal experience is with being a peer reviewer or submitting materials for peer reviewing?

In His Name,
rcrocket

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Dan Peterson vs. Robert Spencer

Post by wenglund »

dartagnan wrote:A few days ago Dan took everyone by surprise and engaged Robert Spencer in a radio debate. Spencer is the author of numerous books on Islam, his recent being "Truth about Muhammad, the Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."

Dan Peterson wrote me off years ago for saying Islam was the most intolerant religion. He refused to discuss anything about Islam with me. Yet here he is discussing it with Spencer. Oddly enough, Spencer says the discussion went smoothly because it seemed Dan agreed with just about everything he said. Over at MAD Dan said he wished he had said different things and clarified his positions better. He also said, strangely enough, that he had no idea that it was supposed to be a "debate."

In any event, I emailed Spencer and asked him if he would be interested in picking up where they left off in an online debate of written format. He said he would love to, and that he would pitch it to frontpagemagazine.com. I asked Dan if he would be OK with it and it seems he is declining.

Why?

I don't get it. First he said “As always, there are points one wishes one had made, places where one wishes one had been clearer and more eloquent, and directions in which one wishes that the conversation had gone. Still, on the whole, it wasn't a bad discussion.” Well, now he has the opportunity. So why not do it?

Dan says he doesn't particularly like debates because it rewards glibness, so he will stick to reviewing Spencer's book in the FROB. This makes no sense to me. In my experience, nothing rewards glibness more than a book review, where someone is given a podium to speak and nobody can respond. He said he wouldn't debate McCue because he didn't like the man, but now he says he doesn't like debates. So why does he do debates at all then?

I think this would be a great opportunity for us to find out where Dan stands on certain controversial issues, and understand his logic for why he believes what he does. It is a golden opportunity in my opinion. I hope he changes his mind and takes it.

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=283


I suppose that the best way to congole Dr. Peterson into participating in online discussions like the one you propose, is with scoffing posts and threads like this. Works every time, doesn't it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by wenglund on Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

rcrocket wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote: since we all know how DCP finagles the peer review process, among other things.


Having been through the peer review process at Farms Review, and at other institutions, I can tell you the process is the same. When I selected peer reviewers for a nationally-prominent law journal, I handpicked them to make sure they were competent and would reflect my views without a whole lot of angst.


So you *do* admit that Farms Review engages in "stacking the deck." This is quite a different stance from your previous one!

FARMS Review was the same.


And how would you know this? Did you know who your reviewer was? Or are you just assuming?


Tell me what your personal experience is with being a peer reviewer or submitting materials for peer reviewing?

In His Name,
rcrocket


No, I am not going to tell you. I prefer not to provide ammo for ad hominem attack. Let's just say that, in my experience, peer review does not include "handpicked reviewers" who will do little more than provide a rubber stamp of approval.

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

I suppose that the best way to congole Dr. Peterson into participating in online discussions like the one you propose, is with scoffing posts and threads like this. Works every time, doesn't it?


For the record, I am not scoffing at Dan, nor do I question his ability to hold his own in a debate. I am not calling him a coward as some are doing, I am simply raising the issue so perhaps others might encourage him to take the challenge. I suffer no delusions that Dan considers anything I say. I sent him an email a couple of months ago and nearly begged him to respond to some of the Muhammad related threads at FAIR. He said he would look at them when he returned from out of town, but he never did respond. He didn't tell me to buzz off, so I think he only slightly considers what I have to say. My request is genuine. I am not licking my chops hoping Spencer mops the floor with Dan. I doubt that would ever happen anyway.

I am just tired of the apparent confusion and lack of precision/clarity over what Dan believes, but more importantly his reasoning for believing what he does. I have heard the gist of his arguments about how current Islam doesn't get its violence from anything Muhammed said or did, and that jihad was only a defensive action, and that the dhimmi people were pretty much better off under Islam, et cetera. But every time I tried to challenge him on any of this he left because he felt it was distateful just to talk about these things; I was damaging him spiritually apparently.

It would be nice to see how his arguments stand up to someone who has the background knowledge to test his theories. Much of Dan's perspective on Islam is driven by his LDS paradigm, that says prophets make mistakes and are pretty much products of their times. This means he cannot condemn Muhammed for things like sanctioning the rape of women, (because that was the norm in his day, so goes the argument) anymore than he can accept criticism of Joseph Smith's money digging wich was also " the norm." It seems too many LDS feel compelled to agree with so much in Islamic apologetics, lest they fall into the hypocrite trap. They make too many superficial parallels that say, well, critics of Islam use some of the same arguments against Mormonism. Since Mormonism is true that must mean Islam is criticized unjustly as well.

Also, the LDS concept of scripture drives Dan's understanding of the Quran and the general rejection of the Journal and Discourses drives his rejection of the Hadith. Dan's LDS paradigm of prophets receiving revelation and not necessarily sharing everything, leaves a window open for him to think that maybe, just maybe, Muhammed was a prophet after all, and all the stuff about Christ not being crucified was just a mistake, kinda like Brigham Young's mistake on Adam/God.

Continuing revelation doesn't exist in Islam,but Dan has implied several times that Islam is in some semi state of apostasy. Again, followng the LDS paradigm. Christianity fell into apostasy so maybe Islam did too. I can only wonder how much of this background infrmation he shares with his readers when he publishes his forthcoming book on Muhammed?

Dan's problem is that Muslims generally reject all of these interpretations and assumptions, and they are the ones who get to say what Islam is and what Islam isn't. Dan wants the Quran to say something aside from what Muslims have always understood (i.e. that Muhammed was the LAST prophet, possibly opening a window for Joseph Smith). So he reinterprets it and then uses these reinterpretations to talk about what Islam is and what Islam isn't. He also seems to hold to the "Quran alone" mentality which is a very extreme minority view in Islam. If Muslims want to rely strictly on the Quran and not the Sunnah as well, then say "bye bye" to the second pillar of Islam. What he describes is another religion altogether, kinda like the polygamy sects in Colorado who claim to represent true Mormonism.

In one post several years ago on ZLMB Dan admitted he was actually performing mental gynastics to make all this work for him. He said something to the effect that he still hasn't figured out a way to make all the data work to his satisfaction, but that he has for most of it. This pretty much proved to me that Dan was predisposed about Islam and he was trying to force that square peg into that triangle to make it all work for him. The last time I spoke with him he was doing back flips trying to accept the possibility that Muhammad received the spirit of Christ, while at the same time denying his atonement.

He like to tell people that Muslims honor Christ as a prophet. He doesn't seem to realize that this means very little since Muslims do not read the Bible, as he himself admits. They do not rely on any biblical version of who Christ was or what he did. In Islam, a true Prphet rules by the sword, slaughters in the land, and cannot be killed by his enemies, so they reject the crucifixion story.

They rely on the few Quranic passages that mention him along with the ahadith, and ultimately describe a historical figure that resembles hardly anything Christians would recognize. It is a Jesus designed from an Islamic lens. And we're supposed to be grateful for this?

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

Also, the LDS concept of scripture drives Dan's understanding of the Quran and the general rejection of the Journal and Discourses drives his rejection of the Hadith.


It doesn't seem to follow if that is indeed what his logic is.

For LDS, JoD quotes that are found in works published by the Church are doctrine. Whereas the Hadith for Muslims are themselves doctrinal works (second to the Quran) accepted by all the traditional Madhhab (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Shia's own Jafari).

To illustrate the correspondence as I see it.....

Islam
Quran --------->The Hadith--------->The Isnad and corresponding Matn (unevaluated)

LDS
Standard Works ---------->Doctrinal works (manuals etc)--------->JoD et. al.

However, Dan's book is out. I suggest we read it see what he has to say.

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

He never put it that way in so many words but he and David Waltz both are fans of the theory that if you cannot point something out that is unambiguously stated in the Quran, then you cannot pin it to Islam or Muhammed. If you do then you're just feeding your own hatred, bigotry, animosity, racism, bla bla bla. And those verses that do exist in the Quran, usually find themselves reinterpreted by the two of them. Waltz prefers Sufi scholars, and often digs up a unique translation of the Quran from a Sufi scholar that disagrees with the consensus. I may be wrong, but I think it is Waltz who actually believes the Quran doesn't deny Christ was crucified. Even Dan disagreed with him on his translation there.

I have heard Dan call the ahadith mere "folklore." Yet, the funny thing about this is that the ahadith and the biographers of Muhammed provide us with virtually everything we know about the man. If you cannot trust them for the negative characterizations, then you cannot be making obsequious claims about him either since these also rely on ahadith. Brian Hauglid's review in the FROB was pathetic because he dug up unheard of hadiths, considered the least reliable and least popular, to tell stories about Muhammed that would make Mormons go "Awwwwwww." One was some tale about how Muhammad was joking around with some old woman when she asked him if she would be ugly in heaven, or something to that effect. The footnote for Hauglid's source was some obscure book of no consequence. I'm going from memory here but I am pretty sure it was some tiny book around 100 pages. He never provided the source for the hadith probably because the book he read it from didn't either. But it sounded like something Mromons would appreciate and get a giggle from it, so he took it for granted that it was authentic and shared that, along with a couple other examples that may or may not appear in the authorized collection of ahadith.

They also rely on the least popular hadith to argue jihad only refers to defense, whereas they ignore the plethora of authorized hadith that argue quitethe opposite. It is a strict matter of picking and choosing what one likes and discarding everything else that doesn't bode well with the picture one wants to paint.

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

Apparently Khaleel Mohammed wrote the introduction to Dan's book. I also noticed this man was one of Robert Spencer's opponents in the past. Here is a response from Spencer: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=17769

Response to Khaleel Mohammed
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 19, 2005

In his sustained attack on me and my work published in FrontPage yesterday, Khaleel Mohammed warned that “within Islam and its current crisis, there are authors who are so blatantly apologetic that their words are often an insult to anyone with average intelligence.” That is true, and Khaleel Mohammed himself is Exhibit A. “Once it can be proven,” he continues, “that there is misinformation or a crass ignorance on the part of the author of any article, then reason would dictate that such a person be disregarded as an authority.” While he was directing that statement at me, I am confident that by the end of this article, any fair-minded reader who is truly interested in fostering moderation and reform in Islam will, on the basis of his own criteria as stated here — “misinformation or a crass ignorance on the part of the author of any article” — disregard Khaleel Mohammed as an authority, both now and in the future.

Khaleel Mohammed says that I have manifested “an unforgivable ignorance of the study of religion concerning law and interpretation,” primarily by citing ahadith, or traditions (sunna) of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (ahadith is the plural of hadith, which word means “news” or “report,” and refers to those traditions in their aggregate). The hadith is, says Khaleel Mohammed, “very problematic. It does not have the authority of the Qur'an and was made up long after Muhammad died.” He asserts that “any student of Islam, within the first week, knows the difference between what Muhammad is supposed to have said, and what the Qur'an says. Spencer seeks to hide this issue.” He also informs us that he is “an observant Muslim” who believes “that the Qur'an militates against hadith.”

In fact I have never sought to “hide” the issue of the authority of the hadith, or the difference between its authority and that of the Qur’an. I discuss all this at some length in my books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers. Khaleel Mohammed asserts that “the Qur’an militates against hadith.” Actually, while it is true that many ahadith are inauthentic and that there is a whole theological science in Islam whereby Muslims judge various ahadith to be authentic or not, the authority of the hadith is generally accepted by Muslims. Since it is the words and deeds of Muhammad, the authority of the hadith is founded on the Qur’an itself: the Qur’an repeatedly exhorts believers to imitate Muhammad, since he is “is neither astray nor being misled” (Qur’an 53:2). Muslims are to “obey Allah, and obey the Messenger” (Qur’an 4:59). For “verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example (uswa hasana) for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day” (Qur’an 33:21). Those who disobey Muhammad are headed for hell: “And whoso opposeth the messenger after the guidance (of Allah) hath been manifested unto him, and followeth other than the believer's way, We appoint for him that unto which he himself hath turned, and expose him unto hell - a hapless journey's end!” (Qur’an 4:115). Muhammad is in Islamic theology al-insan al-kamil: the Perfect Man.

Of course, at this point Khaleel Mohammed might protest that he thinks the “Qur’an militates against hadith,” not against Muhammad. But how is a modern-day Muslim to follow Muhammad’s example? By obeying the ahadith deemed authentic. So I was perfectly justified in quoting ahadith in my article about Musdah Mulia to show that her positions went against traditional and mainstream Islam. Is the authority of the hadith something I cooked up in my fiendish laboratory of Islamophobia? You be the judge: The learned Muslim convert and scholar Ahmad Von Denffer says that “there is agreement among most Muslim scholars that the contents of the sunna are also from Allah.” Those contents are found largely in the hadith. The New Encyclopedia of Islam says that the hadith are “the basis, second only to the Koran, for Islamic law (shari’ah).” Islamic apologist Sayyed Hossein Nasr has called the hadith a “basic aspect of the whole structure of Islam” and blamed the questioning of its authority on that ever-handy bogeyman, “Western Orientalists.” Another Islamic apologist popular in the West, Akbar S. Ahmed, explains that “so great is the respect and affection the Prophet commands that his very sayings, hadith, are the source of wisdom and social practice in the Muslim world.”

I suppose the New Encyclopedia of Islam, Von Denffer, Nasr, Ahmed, and the myriad others who affirm the authority of hadith are ignorant of Islam? Does Khaleel Mohammed not know that the authority of the hadith is normative for almost all Muslims, or is he hoping we don’t know? I will not stoop to his level and charge him with dishonesty, as he charged me; however, at very least he might have informed his readers that his dismissal of the hadith was a distinctly minority view in Islam. We might have had a genuinely fruitful dialogue if he had acknowledged that most Muslims accept the hadith and explained how he proposed to convince his coreligionists that they should set it aside. Instead, he wrote a piece that leaves the impression that most Muslims reject hadith, and that I was dishonest in citing it. Why, Khaleel? Was it “misinformation or a crass ignorance”?

Khaleel Mohammed doesn’t stop there. He claims that “the Qur’an (24:31, 33:59), as any good scholar will tell you, is NOT incipiently ordaining the hijab--but simply telling the women HOW the head covering is to be worn--that it is to be drawn over the breasts. The Qur’an is addressing a society where the head covering is obviously a norm. If time and place have changed, or ‘if the reason is no longer there, the ruling is obsolete’ (in the words of the jurists), then such as Mulia’s ilk have the right to view the hijab as no longer needed.”

Once again, our great Islamic eminence brushes aside the traditional Islamic understanding of these passages, as if with a snap of his fingers or a nod from his “good scholars,” Muslims worldwide will suddenly realize that women need not cover their heads. What I was doing in my piece on Musdah Mulia that so enraged Khaleel was explaining why it will not be so easy for Islamic reformers, because the interpretations they are fighting are deeply rooted. In this case, take the renowned (and still respected and widely read) Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (1301-1372). Von Denffer calls his Qur’an commentary one of the “better-known” and “more valuable books of tafsir [commentary],” and notes that it is “of greatest importance to Muslims.” On Qur’an 33:59, which directs women to “draw their veils (khumur) all over their bodies (juyub),” he explains: “khumur (veils) is the plural of khumar, which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head.” In other words, Ibn Kathir sees the Qur’an as ordaining head coverings. Clearly in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all over the Islamic world, this is how Muslims understand the Qur’an. Khaleel asserts that the burka and chador “are not mentioned in the Qur’an nor in the hadith. Yes, Muslim women do wear them in certain cultures, but that is the interpretation of their culture--the words are not even Arabic.” But he doesn’t tell us that these garments were developed with mainstream understandings of the Qur’an and hadith in mind. Once again, Khaleel Mohammed sketches out a minority view, doesn’t tell us it’s a minority view, and accuses me of dishonesty for not portraying it as a majority view. Again, which is it, Khaleel? “Misinformation or crass ignorance”?

On the issue of polygamy Khaleel Mohammed’s arguments grow even more bizarre. In response to my quoting the Qur’an’s verse permitting polygamy (4:3) he huffs: “Did the Qur’an initiate polygamy, or are the verses of the Qur’an meant to LIMIT the number of wives a man may have to four? And did the Qur’an specify that ‘if you fear that you cannot be just...and you can never be just, then only one’? And did the Jews, Christians and other cultures of seventh century Arabia not practise polygamy?”

Of course the Qur’an didn’t initiate polygamy. I never said it did. Of course others practiced polygamy. Of course the Qur’an set a limit on the number of wives a man could have, and tells a man to take only one if he can’t treat them all fairly. But we aren’t actually talking about seventh century Arabia. We are talking about today, when Musdah Mulia is trying to get polygamy outlawed. I was pointing out that she will face opposition from Qur’anic literalists. Would Khaleel Mohammed have us believe that she will not? (Which is it, Khaleel? “Misinformation or crass ignorance?”) And for him to bring up Jews and Christians in this context is a common tactic of Islamic apologists: to try to call attention to the alleged misdeeds of other groups to divert attention from the real problems within Islam. But is this really a constructive procedure? Maybe seventh-century Jews and Christians did practice polygamy, although this would have been against the laws of the Church; in any case, only in Islam (and Mormonism) is it an issue today. Why try to distract people from this? Why attack someone who speaks honestly about the difficulties Musdah Mulia will face in trying to outlaw polygamy? Khaleel, are you anxious that people not be aware of how widely accepted polygamy is in Islam? Why? Why not be realistic about the herculean task reformers face? Would you prefer that people not know the realities of Islam today? Why?

It’s the same thing with the inequality of inheritance laws. Khaleel tells us that “at least the Qur’an speaks of women having some right to inheritance. That the other scriptures of the Abrahamic religions do not have such laws speak volumes about the status of women at that time. They were not even allowed to inherit and by the process of gradualism, the Qur’an sought to give women a share of inheritance. No one will argue that those laws, by today's enlightened values, are equal. But they are certainly far better than anything that any Abrahamic religion had until then.” Great. But somehow the other Abrahamic religions seem to have gotten around this problem. Notice that Khaleel says nothing whatsoever about how exactly to bring Islamic inheritance laws in line with “today’s enlightened values.” And fulminating about those bad old other Abrahamic religions won’t do this job. Which is it, Khaleel? “Misinformation or crass ignorance”?

Khaleel says that I interpret the Hadith “with malicious prevarication,” but this is yet more pot-and-kettle namecalling. He sneers that, according to me, “Ayesha is supposed to have said that ‘she had not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.’” Then, with consummate chutzpah, he alludes to the fact that “in early Christianity the concept of suffering, as in Judaism, was a virtue,” as if this hadith is suggesting that women are virtuous because of their suffering. But Khaleel doesn’t retell the whole story, so I will now:

Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow." (Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715.)


This is not a story about redemptive suffering. It’s about divorce law. In Islamic law a divorced woman cannot remarry her ex-husband until she consummates a marriage with another man and is divorced by him. This lady came to Muhammad after having been beaten by her second husband, AbdurRahman, telling him she wants to go back to the first, Rifa’a. She has large bruises from AbdurRahman’s beatings — and that is the context in which Aisha says: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” But the Prophet says absolutely nothing about her bruises, and tells her she must stay with AbdurRahman until he has sex with her and divorces her.

So this hadith teaches about women bearing suffering as a virtue, eh, Khaleel? The only way you could get people to believe that would be if they had not read the story and didn’t know what was in it. Which is it? Misinformation or crass ignorance?

Khaleel Mohammed concludes his diatribe by asserting that “Spencer portrays himself as a scholar of Islam, and that he is not.” If he had actually troubled to do any research, he might have found this statement at my website: “I draw no conclusions of myself. Pick up my books Onward Muslim Soldiers and Islam Unveiled, and you will see that both are made up largely of quotations from Islamic jihadists and the traditional Islamic sources to which they appeal to justify violence and terrorism. I am only shedding light on what these sources say.” This article is an example of how I always work: in it, I have quoted Qur’an, hadith, Ahmad Von Denffer, the New Encyclopedia of Islam, Sayyed Hossein Nasr, Akbar S. Ahmed, and Ibn Kathir. Khaleel Mohammed’s real disagreement is with them, not with me. Meanwhile, he is the one setting himself up as an Islamic scholar, if not THE Islamic scholar, for in his attack on me he refers to nary an authority but his own pristine judgment. Yet after all his distortions, obfuscations, half-truths and worse, here and elsewhere, he is not an authority that any sensible and reasonable person, Muslim or non-Muslim, should take seriously.

Khaleel also charges that I misquote “verses of the Qur'an,” although he gives no examples. He can’t give any, because I don’t misquote the Qur’an. In the Musdah Mulia article I quote only one Qur’an verse (4:3), in the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. That is a translation made by Muslims for Muslims. Anyone can see that I quoted the verse verbatim by checking here. He also has the gall to say that I take things “out of context,” despite his outright mauling of the context of Aisha’s statement that Muslim women suffer more than other women. He even resorts to the basest mudslinging, charging that I “shamelessly lie,” although here again he produces no examples, and cannot.

This magnanimous Islamic scholar finally declares that “anyone who knowingly lies about the sources and beliefs of a religion commits not only a sin (the religious term) but an intellectual crime.”

Thus you condemn yourself, Dr. Mohammed. I don’t actually know if you are “knowingly lying” in writing this mendacious, misleading, and malicious attack, but it’s one of two choices, as you yourself have said: misinformation or crass ignorance. At very least you have revealed that you are not a trustworthy voice in the all-important search for genuine Islamic moderation.


It seems Dan didn't even know that this guy was going to write an introduction for him. If Spencer is correct, and this guy "is not an authority that any sensible and reasonable person, Muslim or non-Muslim, should take seriously," then that can't be good for Dan.

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

For kicks and giggles I tried to post over at MAD, but they blocked my account. Pretty strange since they broadcast to the world that I was able to post. Apparently another lie to make them appear tolerant and forgiving. In any event, here are some thoughts on what was posted:

Beowulf said,

There are not a few groups that have done an Mountain Meadows Massacre 10000 times over, throughout human history, and through all different cultures. This includes Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists (of the Communist and Fascist varieties), as well as Muslims.


Except the difference is that Christendom’s acts of violence were political, rarely, if ever, with the approval of the papacy (the crusades were defensive efforts to save Christianity from destruction) whereas Islam’s violent acts were the norm, and were divinely sanctioned by Islam’s holy book and the “perfect” example of its founder. Most historians know the difference between Christianity and Christendom, although most tend to blur the distinction as a means to make illicit comparisons with Muhammad's battles (prophet and founder of Islam whose example is followed to this day) and say, Constantine's sword (an emperor who "converted" to Christianity for political reasons only, and never gave his authority over to the papacy). Muslim scholars today refuse to view Islam as something entirely separate from politics. It is politics. There is no Christian equivalent of Islamic Law which mandates Muslims to seek to overthrow the world by violence if necessary. There is no Christian equivalent of the Islamic view of the world, which is divided into two categories: The House of Islam and the House of War. Meaning, those territories not ruled by Muslim law is open season for any Muslim who wished to engage in jihad, which was, contrary to some academic claims, not only a “defensive” action. History proves that in practice, it was almost entirely offensive.

While Islam has had its frightening moments (and we are certainly living through one of those "moments" now), let's put this in perspective, please...


I have done this many times and it still comes out as the world’s most intolerant religion, just as Robert Spencer asserts. To this day nobody has been able to make a compelling argument to counter him.

Her Amum said,

that's when you have to pat yourself on the back.


Dan couldn’t even begin to find room on his back to pat because you and everyone else are already in constant back-patting mode.
Last edited by dartagnan on Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

dartagnan wrote:For kicks and giggles I tried to post over at MAD, but they blocked my account. Pretty strange since they broadcast to the world that I was able to post. Apparently another lie to make them appear tolerant and forgiving.


Hey, Kevin. Didn't they say something like "we can't stop him from creating sock puppets and posting here" or words to that effect?

Basically, they have admitted that you're pretty slick with being able to create new accounts. LOL

I'm sure that if it's worth your time, you can create a new sock puppet, and as long as you "mind your manners", they won't stop you from posting.

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

Yea, well this is essentially what happened with X1X. I posted for a week or so while Chaos was monitoring the discussion. He/she didn't know who I was, despite the fact that I had been posting the same stuff as X1X as I did for the three years prior, as Kevin Graham.

But I knew once I decided to engage DCP, he would figure it out and mention it to the mods. Only at that point did they block the IP I was using. Also, they initially decided not to ban X1X but instead restrict that account from viewing any of the discussions. I could log in but I could not get past the front welcome page. A few days later I noticed they blocked the IP altogether.

Oh well.

I don't rule out the possibility of creating another account in the future. It depends on what is being said. Ignorance running rampant drives me nuts, and lately it has only been the subject of Islam that gets under my skin. I am kinda burnt out on all of the other topics relating to LDS apologetics. Except for the Book of Abraham, but there are plenty of people already there like CaliforniaKid who can take over where I left off before. There is an extreme lack of informed commentary on Islam however, and again, it drives me nuts to see so many Saints being misled by the regular tripe you hear from the likes of Karen Armstrong.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests