Why I no longer trust DCP

[_dartagnan]

I just got back to the States but looked for it in a couple of book stores. No luck finding it yet. I'm guessing I'll have to order it.

[_chonguey]

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.

Exactly. It is painful obvious why DCP can be shameless Mopologist just as well as he can be an apologist for Islam and Islamic rule. The truth isn't the important part, it's the SPIN.

DCP has always fascinated me. How is that an obviously and well educated man can also be such a shameless liar in defending an "idea" that is historically and factually indefensible?

The problem with Mopologetics is this perverse need to convince anyone and every one that Joseph Smith is not a Wizard of Oz unto himself, but rather a new Muhammad or a new Jesus or Moses or whatever. DCP has no credibility for that reason already. Mopologetics has no credibility because "apologetics" in all it's forms is an intellectually bankrupt pursuit. It's no surprise he has also sold himself out to be an apologist for fascist Islam. The checks from BYU must not be paying the bills well enough.

The only apologetics that is worthy is the apologetics of "fact," also known as "science." DCP believes in the apologetics of spin.

[_dartagnan]

I forgot to mention another thing.

Almost immediately after 9-11 Peterson and Hamblin threw up a quick article on the FARMS website encouraging everyone not to use that tragedy to judge the religion of Islam. In it he said Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who didn't represent true Christianity anymore than jihadists represent true Islam (it doesn't seem to matter to him if most Muslims disagree with him, but that is another issue).

The problem with this statement is that Timothy McVeigh was no Christian, nor did he ever claim to be. It was simply an assumption many ignorant people made. Apparently being a backwoods, shaved headed white boy must mean you've grown up in a Baptist congregation all your life. Idiots like Louis Farakhan from the Nation of Islam started using McVeigh as a prime example of modern Christian terrorism.

It was simply shocking to see someone like Dan Peterson make this kind false statement. What was his source? Was it Farakhan himself?

Talk about sloppy scholarship.

The article has since been removed from the web. A few years ago it was up only in cached form, but now it is no longer available in any format. I pointed out this error to Dan on the FAIR forum during that time but he never responded. I wonder if this prompted him to remove it.

In any event, it was an inexcusable comment with the signature of both Peterson and Hamblin. They should both be held accountable for making ridiculously false statements.

[_richardMdBorn]

I forgot to mention another thing.

Almost immediately after 9-11 Peterson and Hamblin threw up a quick article on the FARMS website encouraging everyone not to use that tragedy to judge the religion of Islam. In it he said Timothy McVeigh was a Christian who didn't represent true Christianity anymore than jihadists represent true Islam (it doesn't seem to matter to him if most Muslims disagree with him, but that is another issue).

The problem with this statement is that Timothy McVeigh was no Christian, nor did he ever claim to be. It was simply an assumption many ignorant people made. Apparently being a backwoods, shaved headed white boy must mean you've grown up in a Baptist congregation all your life. Idiots like Louis Farakhan from the Nation of Islam started using McVeigh as a prime example of modern Christian terrorism.

It was simply shocking to see someone like Dan Peterson make this kind false statement. What was his source? Was it Farakhan himself?

Talk about sloppy scholarship.

The article has since been removed from the web. A few years ago it was up only in cached form, but now it is no longer available in any format. I pointed out this error to Dan on the FAIR forum during that time but he never responded. I wonder if this prompted him to remove it.

In any event, it was an inexcusable comment with the signature of both Peterson and Hamblin. They should both be held accountable for making ridiculously false statements.

I tried to use wayback to find the article without success.

[_dartagnan]

I was reading Robert Spencer's new book, "Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam isn't" and I was somewhat honored to see Spencer tackling an issue I brought up with Peterson a few years ago.

Dan Peterson in one Meridian article, tried to use Al Ghazali as a great example of what true Islam really is. He went on to say that Ghazali wouldn't have condoned any attacks on innocent civilians, as exhibited by moder jihadists.

In response, I provided a citation from Ghazali which proved the exact opposite. Ghazali said that during jihad raids, it was permissable to use catapults even if there were women and children within the walls. He went on to say Muslims should wage war against Christians and Jews. I brought this up to Dan on numerous occassions at FAIR and my posts were usually deleted or edited when it became obvious Dan wouldn't respond (They never let unanswered refutatons stand). Dan only acknolwedged it once in a private email. He said something to the effect of, "I know you think you nailed me on this point," but he never did anything show he was right. All he did was assert and then imply I was somehow wrong in my criticism.

Anyway, Spencer brings this exact point up when some Muslims try to use Ghazali as a shining example of true Islam. Even worse, Ghazali encouraged the killing of apostates, which was the topic at MAD recently.

This makes me wonder. How could Dan Peterson get this so wrong? What could possibly be his excuse? Doesn't this guy read these ancient works in their original language? So why would he mischaracterize Al Ghazali in this manner? Is it because he thinks nobody in the vicinity can check and challenge his claims?

Whatever his reasons, the fact remains he is providing sloppy scholarship, and is therefore untrustworthy.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I wish Dr. Peterson would respond here. It makes no sense to me that as a professor of Islam that he would try to present it in a way that does not agree with the history. Perhaps he has information to rebut your post, but I do not know.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I am sorry Kev but I am highly skeptical Dr. Peterson approaches Islam in this way. And I know from interacting with him on a message board about Muhammed that he does not view him as a true prophet like he does Joseph Smith.

[_dartagnan]

I am sorry Kev but I am highly skeptical Dr. Peterson approaches Islam in this way. And I know from interacting with him on a message board about Muhammed that he does not view him as a true prophet like he does Joseph Smith.

Like Joseph Smith? Of course not.

But the fact that he even entertains the possibility that Muhammad was a bonafide prophet of God, should raise red flags. Muhammad denied Jesus was the Son of God, denied the atonement, and denied that Jesus was even crucified. He went on to provide an open-ended command for all Muslims to attack all non-believers, even the Jews and Christians. Peterson is in heavy denial when it comes to Muhammad.

I remember one time many years ago on ZLMB, he was speaking about troubling aspects of Islam and Muhammad and said he had not yet managed to account for them to his own satisfaction. This was before 9-11, I believe, but it showed me he was actively trying to recreate both Islam and Muhammad in an image that suits him. This is the same thing LDS apologists do with troubling facts that undermine a predetermined premise. Dan Peterson went into the subject of Islam with presuppositions that were clearly nurtured in academia, but much of it is myth and supported only by selectively picking through history and ignoring context. He is simply a product of his environment.

I wish Dr. Peterson would respond here. It makes no sense to me that as a professor of Islam that he would try to present it in a way that does not agree with the history. Perhaps he has information to rebut your post, but I do not know.

I wish he would too, but I'm not holding my breath. Here is the comment I am referring to. According to Daniel Peterson:
"...the intentional individual and mass murder of civilian noncombatants—these are neither traditional expressions of Muslim piety nor venerable instruments of Islamic statecraft. This is not the Islam of the poet Rumi, the theologian al-Ghazali, the philosopher Avicenna, or the scientist and historian al-Biruni." (http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040517islam.html )

And according to Al Ghazali:

"…one must go on jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need..." (Al-Ghazali. Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. - English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.)

How is it a legitimate Islamic scholar could make such an error? This is not a slight goof. Peterson is effectively misrepresenting Ghazali by assuring us he holds a position which is not even remotely similar to the "Islam" he is trying to promote.

As for the other three Muslims of times past, Rumi was a Sufist, who quite possibly authored the following lyric: "I am not a Christian, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, or a Muslim." According to Arberry, Avicenna was,"unquestionably, gloriously heretical; he rejected unreservedly the resurrection of the body, and with it the literal acceptance of those passages in the Koran describing in graphic physical terms the pleasure and the torture of the damned.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Al Biruni had "agnostic tendencies.”

The point being, these were hardly your quintessential Muslims, but because of their fame (outside the religious realm), Peterson needs them to be representative of "true" Islam. This is sloppy scholarship at best and apologetic deception at worst.

[_dartagnan]

Jason, have you contacted Dan yet?

I got his excuse for not responding to me, but would he respond to you?

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, have you contacted Dan yet?

I got his excuse for not responding to me, but would he respond to you?

No I did not try to contact him on this. I doubt I could get him to come here to discuss this.