Why I no longer trust DCP

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Why I no longer trust DCP

Post by _dartagnan »

I know there are plenty other examples, but here are a few I had saved on my notebook. Keep in mind the typical exhortation to allow Muslims to tell us what Islam really is. DCP isn't a Muslim, last I checked.

Dan Peterson: "Islam did not spread by the sword..."

Muslim Imam: "The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam." (http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=en ... 3087&dgn=3)

Daniel Peterson: "…it was amazingly bloodless in many cases, when they invaded Egypt, for example, the Egyptians were so mad at the Byzantines that an Egyptian went down and opened the gates at Cairo…and let the Muslims come in, and let the Arab armies come in because they wanted to get out from under the Byzantines."

Historical Coptic account: "They killed and imprisoned many Christians. They captured Egypt and went to the City of Alexandria (now Cairo), around which there were six hundred inhabited monasteries. They killed all the inhabitants, plundered their possessions, and destroyed the monasteries. When the people of Alexandria heard what they had done, because of their fear, they opened the gates of the city for them...the Persian King went with his army to Upper Egypt. He passed by the city of Nikios. He heard that there were some seven hundred monks living in cells and caves around it. He sent men to kill them. He continued to kill and destroy until Emperor Heraclius conquered him and drove him out of Egypt." (Coptic Diary, Tubah 8:2)

Amazingly bloodless, eh?

Daniel Peterson: "The Muslims did not force conversions."

Muslim Imam: "The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger." (http://www.understanding-islam.com/rela ... id=1768%20)

"Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah." (http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html)

Daniel Peterson: "[if you were under Islamic rule] you can maintain your religion and maintain a slightly higher tax rate."
Coptic Bishop John: "And the Moslem took possession of all the land of Egypt, southern and northern, and tripled their taxes."

One hadith speaks of the dhimmi tax burden being twice that which was imposed on Muslims.(Malik ibn Anas, Muwatta’ Imam Malik, translated by Muhammad Rahimuddin, 2000 ch. 177, no. 661) An increase of 100%-200% is what Peterson calls "slightly higher"?

Daniel Peterson: "Islam has been more tolerant on minority religions than Christianity has been."

Jewish Historian, Cecil Roth: "Only in Rome has the colony of Jews continued its existence since before the beginning of the Christian era, because of all the dynasties of Europe, the Papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews of Rome and Italy, but throughout the ages popes were protectors of the Jews…The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude." (Lecture Feb. 25th, 1927).

Daniel Peterson: "Armed struggle in the Quran and in the traditional teachings of Muhammad is not to be lightly entered into-certainly not in an offensive posture and only in self-defense when in imminent physical danger... [the abode of war] is the war against such things as materialism, immorality, exploitation of women, and anything that can tempt a Muslim to forget his God."

Bernard Lewis: "The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Quran, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms. According to Islamic law, it is lawful to wage war against four types of enemies: infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Although all four types of wars are legitimate, only the first two count as jihad. Jihad is thus a religious obligation...In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslims faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds - booty in this one, paradise in the next." (p.32)

For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetimes of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. (p.33)

Jihad is sometimes presented as the Muslim equivalent of the Crusade, and the two are seen as more or less equivalent...But there is a difference. The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history - in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate successors. It has continued throughout Islamic history and retains its appeal to the present day.(p.37)
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

You no longer trust him because you disagree with what he said? Is this new?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

For anyone else who isn't paying attention. I no longer trust him for the same reasons I no longer trust John Gee.

Dan Peterson makes comments about Islam that are demonstrably false.

You say it is because he disagrees with me, but it is because he disagrees with Muslim authorities. He also makes statements about Christian history that are refuted by those Christians who were there at the time.

Imagine if a non-Mormon followed the teachings of some of the fundamentalist Mormon breakoffs and then presented them to the world as true Mormonism. Mormonism teaches deification you say. Not so fast. "That's not in the Book of Mormon," would be the Dan Peterson method.

Do you think Dan Peterson would appreciate this approach to Mormonism?

Of course not, but that is essentially what he does with Islam. He tries to recreate it in an image that suits him. This isn't what scholars do. This is what apologists do.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Thanks for those quotes, Kevin. Very interesting stuff.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Kevin, do you think it's fair to say that DCP's training in Islamic Studies has been a kind of "warm up" for some of the stuff he pulls in Mopologetics?
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Re: Why I no longer trust DCP

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

dartagnan wrote:Daniel Peterson: "The Muslims did not force conversions."

Muslim Imam: "The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger." (http://www.understanding-islam.com/rela ... id=1768%20)

"Authorities are of the opinion that Muslims must fight the polytheist nations as well as the Jews and Christians of today until they subdue them. It is further held that while the polytheist nations must be put to death if they do not accept faith, the Jews and Christians can be allowed to live on their religions if they submit to Muslim authority by paying Jizyah." (http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mar_d2y2.html)


This one definitely seems false. Even with my weak knowledge of Islamic history weren't young Christian boys drafted, forcibly converted to Islam and trained as the Janissaries (private bodyguard, also bureaucrats) of the Ottoman Emperors?
"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
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Kevin, do you think it's fair to say that DCP's training in Islamic Studies has been a kind of "warm up" for some of the stuff he pulls in Mopologetics?


There seems to be too much in common to be just coincidence doesn't it?

Dan made up his mind that Muhammad was possibly a true prophet of God, so he has to recreate Islam to fit that scenario. He immediately assumes the Mormon paradigm is an appropriate one for Islam, and he does so because he thinks both are the legitimate works of God, so why not?

What I mean by the same paradigm is this. He uses the same "that's not official doctrine" line from Mormon apologetics, and applies it to his Islamic apologetics. I want to throw up every time he says "That's not in the Quran."

You see, since Christianity experienced an apostasy, Islam must have as well. This is how he explains the horrible things taught in Islam. You see, they are all later additions after the "Prophet" died, so you can't tie it to real Islam.

Most Muslims believe them anyway? No matter says Peterson. WHat matters is the Quran alone and whether or not Muhammad believed these things.

Muhammad did believe these things?

Nonsense says Peterson. You see, the historical accounts are not accurate. They were changes by later redactors who were seeking their own glory by attributing to Muhammad things they wanted to be taught.

With this kind of brain-dead logic, one can pretty much make Islam whatever one wants to. More importantly, it renders his years of education on the issue irrelevant since he doesn't apply it responsibly. For example, he knows as well as anyone else that jihad was mostly an aggressive war waged against unbelievers. But he won't admit it.

Why? Because it clouds his preferred romanticized view of Islam. So he discards this knowledge and explains it away as a case of evil scribes gone awry, same as the LDS paradigm explains how LDS doctrines are missing from the Bible.

The funny thing is, I doubt any of his academic cohorts realize just how and why Dan approaches Islam with a Mormon background of "the apostasy did it" excuse.

I wish Dan would just be honest in his next speech abroad, and tell his Muslim audience that Islam suffered an apostasy. That the real teachings of Muhammad had been obscured in the ahadith. That Muhammad might have very well been a Christian without knowing it (Dan gladly accepts the scenario that Muhammad really knew Christ was the Son of God, and that the evidence to the contrary was really a result of scribal error).

Of ocurse if he ever did that in a Muslim country, he'd probably be killed for insulting Islam.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

dartagnan wrote:Dan made up his mind that Muhammad was possibly a true prophet of God, so he has to recreate Islam to fit that scenario. He immediately assumes the Mormon paradigm is an appropriate one for Islam, and he does so because he thinks both are the legitimate works of God, so why not?


If DCP believes that Islam is true, in the sense that he believes that Mormonism is true, then how can he think Mormonism is true?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

dartagnan wrote:
Kevin, do you think it's fair to say that DCP's training in Islamic Studies has been a kind of "warm up" for some of the stuff he pulls in Mopologetics?


There seems to be too much in common to be just coincidence doesn't it?

Dan made up his mind that Muhammad was possibly a true prophet of God, so he has to recreate Islam to fit that scenario. He immediately assumes the Mormon paradigm is an appropriate one for Islam, and he does so because he thinks both are the legitimate works of God, so why not?

What I mean by the same paradigm is this. He uses the same "that's not official doctrine" line from Mormon apologetics, and applies it to his Islamic apologetics. I want to throw up every time he says "That's not in the Quran."

You see, since Christianity experienced an apostasy, Islam must have as well. This is how he explains the horrible things taught in Islam. You see, they are all later additions after the "Prophet" died, so you can't tie it to real Islam.

Most Muslims believe them anyway? No matter says Peterson. WHat matters is the Quran alone and whether or not Muhammad believed these things.

Muhammad did believe these things?

Nonsense says Peterson. You see, the historical accounts are not accurate. They were changes by later redactors who were seeking their own glory by attributing to Muhammad things they wanted to be taught.

With this kind of brain-dead logic, one can pretty much make Islam whatever one wants to. More importantly, it renders his years of education on the issue irrelevant since he doesn't apply it responsibly. For example, he knows as well as anyone else that jihad was mostly an aggressive war waged against unbelievers. But he won't admit it.

Why? Because it clouds his preferred romanticized view of Islam. So he discards this knowledge and explains it away as a case of evil scribes gone awry, same as the LDS paradigm explains how LDS doctrines are missing from the Bible.

The funny thing is, I doubt any of his academic cohorts realize just how and why Dan approaches Islam with a Mormon background of "the apostasy did it" excuse.

I wish Dan would just be honest in his next speech abroad, and tell his Muslim audience that Islam suffered an apostasy. That the real teachings of Muhammad had been obscured in the ahadith. That Muhammad might have very well been a Christian without knowing it (Dan gladly accepts the scenario that Muhammad really knew Christ was the Son of God, and that the evidence to the contrary was really a result of scribal error).

Of ocurse if he ever did that in a Muslim country, he'd probably be killed for insulting Islam.


Fascinating post, Kevin.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Kevin, just one question here: Have you read DCP's biography of Muhammad? If so, what is your opinion?
Post Reply