Daniel C. Peterson's book

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Mister Scratch wrote:Edited to add: I noticed that the post DCP cited appears to have been altered from the standard RfM format. Thus it seems that, at the very least, DCP was monkeying with the date for some reason.


Sorry, Scratch, but this is NOT a credible explanation! And I don't think anyone believes it. This incriminates you even more. Maybe you'd like to go through your detailed defence some more. But at the moment: I think you are a liar! Prove me wrong.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Edited to add: I noticed that the post DCP cited appears to have been altered from the standard RfM format. Thus it seems that, at the very least, DCP was monkeying with the date for some reason.


Sorry, Scratch, but this is NOT a credible explanation! And I don't think anyone believes it. This incriminates you even more. Maybe you'd like to go through your detailed defence some more. But at the moment: I think you are a liar! Prove me wrong.


Ray---

What are you talking about? How does the fact that DCP is toying with the evidence somehow incriminate me?
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I just realized that the scholar Michael Ash emailed for an opinion on DCP, was one of the handful of scholars involved in his Islamic Translation series. Since he is involved in it, isn't it natural to expect a favoring opinion of this endeavor as well as the man who spear-headed it?

DCP is known among certain circles no doubt. But in other circles people have never heard of him. Daniel Pipes had never heard of him, and Pipes runs a website dedicated to monitoring professors who teach about Islam.

I also noticed that Dan found my post "amusing" for suggesting the texts were insignificant, yet he has yet to demonstrate their significance. He has only cited a couple of scholars who praised him for the effort.

It seems they would be of value to students in the field of Islamic philosophy, but then, aren't those students supposed to learn Arabic anyway? I thought a major accomplishment of this translation series was to counter "hate-driven" polemics, as Dr. Zaia asserts. I am simply asking how this is demonstrated. He seems to shed light on a specific agenda behind the project. Are they translating medieval Muslims who spoke out against terrorism?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

dartagnan wrote:I just realized that the scholar Michael Ash emailed for an opinion on DCP, was one of the handful of scholars involved in his Islamic Translation series. Since he is involved in it, isn't it natural to expect a favoring opinion of this endeavor as well as the man who spear-headed it?

DCP is known among certain circles no doubt. But in other circles people have never heard of him. Daniel Pipes had never heard of him, and Pipes runs a website dedicated to monitoring professors who teach about Islam.

I also noticed that Dan found my post "amusing" for suggesting the texts were insignificant, yet he has yet to demonstrate their significance. He has only cited a couple of scholars who praised him for the effort.

It seems they would be of value to students in the field of Islamic philosophy, but then, aren't those students supposed to learn Arabic anyway? I thought an major accomplishment of this translation series was to counter "hate-driven" polemics, as Dr. Zaia asserts. I am simply asking how this is demonstrated.


Hey Dart---

I was curious what you thought of his attempts to pooh-pooh away your suggestion that his projects had been funded by the Church and/or BYU....
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

It was just an assumption, and rather beside the point really. I certainly wasn't trying to knock the project by suggesting it was Church funded. I am not sure that could be a knock anyway. I was a little taken back however, that this was all he responded to. I mean really, who cares where the money came from? My point was that he should get credit for persuading those who funded it, to do so.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Incidentally, Dan is responding to my comments without indicating who I am for some reason or another.

Another critic over on the home message board of one of the numerous anti-Mormon "Mister Scratches" continues to suggest that the books that my project translates are insignificant.

Whatever.

All anybody has to do to test his suggestion, I think, is to look up such names as Ibn Sina [= Avicenna], Ibn Rushd [= Averroës], al-Ghazali, Moses Maimonides, and the like, in a decent encyclopedia.

For that matter, even the great medieval poet Dante Alighieri, a devout Christian during a period when political correctness toward Islam carried no weight at all, put such folks as Avicenna and Averroës in the very highest circle of the Inferno (along with Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Homer) -- the most positive compliment, given his theology, that he was capable of paying to them.

Of course, perhaps Dante's Divina Commedia is an insignificant work, too . . .


Dan still hasn’t addressed the point. Why is it that the works of Plato, Homer, Aristotle and Socrates have been long since translated into English, yet these medieval Islamic philosophers have not? If nothing from Plato was translated until the early 21st century, then I would question his significance just the same. Dan also makes a ridiculous comparison to Dante’s Divine Comedy, which has been translated into English many times over and is widely considered the greatest achievement in the history of literature. In nearly a century of Orientalist studies, nobody in the West has taken it upon themselves to bother translating these Islamic works for the general public. My question is simple: why not if these works represent such a major contribution to world literature as Dan suggests? Dan responds by addressing peripheral comments from the post instead of the main question.

This, in and of itself speaks volumes about how unimportant these works are for modern readers. They appear to be of interest only to those who choose expertise in ancient Islamic philosophy, and again, these are generally those who already know Arabic.

Dan once assured me that thanks to Islam’s past achievements my life is “much richer” because of them. A rather arrogant assertion to be sure (I’ll be the one who decides what makes my life “richer”). But it seems Dan puts more stock into this assumption than most others are willing to do, except of course, other Muslim scholars who naturally think Islamic contributions are of the utmost importance, no matter how trivial they were then and now.

As far as Dante not tossing Avicenna into the pits of hell… so what? Maybe this is because Avicenna was a heretical Muslim who rejected basic Islamic principles such as the resurrection. According to Arberry, “Even during his lifetime Avicenna was suspected of infidelity to Islam; after his death accusations of heresy, free thought and atheism were repeatedly leveled against him.” Al Ghazali, drilled him along with Al Farabi, for heresy in his Incoherence of the Philosophers. This was far more successful and resonated well in the Muslim world because it replaced free thought and philosophical ponderings with dogmatic literalism from the Quran. Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya distrusted rationalism and logic, expressing certainty that the study of philosophy results in a loss of faith. These are products of Islam the religion, and they put an effective end to any meaningful, subsequent Islamic philosophical tradition. And we’re supposed to be thankful to them for…? They killed Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy, which was its only saving grace to begin with.

Yet, Dan often throws up Avicenna as some kind of product of Islam for which we should all be grateful. Whatever greatness Avicenna gave to the world, apparently it was in spite of Islam, not because of it. As far as the latter goes, the most important contribution by Averroes was his translations of Aristotle. Dante placed them both in limbo, "the place that favor owes to fame," but again, so what? This doesn’t explain why nobody up until now, felt their works were important enough to translate for the rest of the English speaking world.
Post Reply