A Blistering Account of DCP's Scholarship

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ray,

Islam is similar to Mormonism in that most Mormons aren't temple-recommend holding regulars, just as most Muslims aren't regular mosque-goers who have visited Mecca. There are a variety of Mormons with a variety of takes on Mormonism, just as there are Muslims with many takes on Islam.

That said, canonical Mormonism is relatively clear (think the D&C, or the Church Handbook of Instructions). Mormonism is one thing, and Mormons are another.

Sharia and canonical Islam (think the four schools of Islamic thought) is one thing, and Joe Muslim is another.

I'm surprised you're not clear on the concept, and I'm not sure what you're dog is in this fight other than it hits a little too close to home for comfort.

- VRDRC

[_RayAgostini]

I'm surprised you're not clear on the concept, and I'm not sure what you're dog is in this fight other than it hits a little too close to home for comfort.

I am more than aware of everything you've stated, Doc. Maybe you don't believe me when I say I mix with Muslims every working day, and have had long conversations with a variety of Muslims. I've had them read the Qur'an to me in Arabic, along with the English translation and "commentary" (usually personal opinion, of course). I feel quite certain that most "Westerners" have a very dim "textbook" understanding not only of Islam, but Muslim culture. And unfortunately, Mormonism itself isn't enshrined in what FAIR publishes, either.

I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not a Muslim apologist (nor a Mormon apologist). So what's my "dog in this fight"? Well, before becoming a cab driver I didn't know what to make of Muslims. I had worked with Muslims before, but not on the level I now do. I read Kevin Graham's many criticisms of Islam, since about 2003 I think (ZLMB), but felt no need to, er, excuse me, join the "Muslim bashing". I did write a couple of pieces to the local paper criticising Islam, but now consider that to have been premature. So what really changed me was mixing with Muslims on a much deeper level, and working for a Muslim boss whom I still feel is a man of honesty and integrity, and most of all realising that they are not a solidified "monolithic entity". They are, first and foremost - human beings! They want freedom. They want to be able to practice their religion without harassment. And most of all they DON'T want to be branded as "terrorists"!

That's my "dog" in this fight.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ray, Ul Quadri is a Sufi, which is a minority branch of Islam. Surely you're not telling me this guy is more authoritative than all of those I had previously mentioned.

In any event this is all beside the point. The question is whether you're really interested in the truth. The fact is jihad is primarily offensive as history has shown. So it doesn't matter what someone thinks jihad should be, the fact is jihad is demonstrably something very different from what they want it to be, and it has been interpreted as a justifiable offensive measure against unbelievers for centuries. This in and of itself disproves Dan's claim. All four schools of Islamic thought agree with what I have posted. You're stretching it to pull in a Sufi, which is considered not even Islamic by hardliner Muslims. Just look at the way this guy is criticized as fringe by this Muslim forum:

This is like going to the Church of Christ to prove Mormons don't really believe the Book of Mormon is based on historical events, because you happen to be around a lot of those folks and this is what they tell you. I mean, really, that's what you're doing here. With over a billion adherents and several branches, you're always going to be able to find someone looking to get in front of the camera and tell the non-Muslim people what we really want to hear: that Islam is completely tolerant, is against violence, etc etc. But all of this means nothing if the majority of that faith disagree with him. I'm not worried about what Australian born Muslims think is "true Islam." I'm more concerned about how far the Sunnis in Europe and the USA are willing to take the Quran literally.

And yes, Australia has its problems trying to keep Sharia law from becoming a reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/m ... ia/2717096

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6097889992

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ralia.html


And I say Islam is the world's most intolerant religion because, well, one of the many world religions has to be the most intolerant right? So why is it such a crime to use common sense here to determine which one it is? Because it is taboo to criticize a religion? I don't care, I'm more interested in what's actually true. And you just don't see Catholics, Baptists or Mormons taking to the streets anywhere in the world with the kinds of protests and veiled threats, like you do from Muslims. How is this for the horse's mouth?



















But hey, I'm the violent one right? I'm the bigot for taking these kinds of threats seriously.

Gotcha!

[_Kevin Graham]

I just received an email informing me that Dan Peterson is still starting threads over at MAD about me.

Good grief Dan.

He now wants to back away from his original claim that jihad was only in self defense. That's fine.

But at least admit that's what you're doing. Years ago I critiqued a piece written by Brian Hauglid, who argued along those lines, and I stated on the forum that I wasn't sure if Dan Peterson agreed with it. Dan immediately responded by saying he obviously agreed with it or else he wouldn't have published it. Anyone so inclined can google the original exchange in the MAD archives - assuming they didn't delete it.

So what was it that Dan agreed with? This remark here:

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. This is why terrorist leaders work very hard to carefully persuade their followers that they have been put in a position of self-defense.

I remember arguing about this on the forum and Dan never once clarified his position or made qualification, allowing room for an offensive jihad. After all, he just said that he agreed completely with what Hauglid said.

Now, years alter he says he doesn't hold this position. Go figure.

The interesting thing for Ray, is now he has to decide who he wants to believe. Dan Peterson or his Australian Sufist. LOL.

At least my departure at MAD will add more fodder for discussion here. We can now expect Peterson and Schryver both to participate with increased frequency, now that they know I'm not there to critique them.

[_RayAgostini]

Kevin,

I'll respond to all of your points, in time, but I want to take this one first;

How is this for the horse's mouth?



















But hey, I'm the violent one right? I'm the bigot for taking these kinds of threats seriously.

Gotcha!

Now, seriously, take a good look at the kind of hate you're fostering with slogans and pics:

Hitler propaganda:

.

Is this what you want?

[_bcspace]

Long ago, DCP once put forth some Muslim scholar from Pakistan as a "moderate" (by Western Standards). When I quoted from that scholar about violent jihad, the thread got shut down.

But as I've mentioned before, I get the impression that DCP can't really express his true views on this and some other subjects due to the politically sensitive nature of his job. It's really unfortunate as schools are supposed to be advocates of truth. On paper, they often are. But it also depends on who heads the various departments or the school itself and I'm afraid the Church is too worried about not letting the wheat grow up with the tares at the moment to allow the truth to be expressed regarding Islam or the Democrats etc. The Church wants to get into Islamic countries and the only solution to that problem so far is to get the membership of Islam to believe it's own West-directed rhetoric about how peaceful it is etc. I'm 100% certain it won't work without the Lord's help in softening hearts.

In the meantime, the most accurate western source for Islam and it's ramifications in the world is Daniel Pipes.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ray, what in the bejeezus is your point here?

Is what, what I want?

All I did was prove this Sufi guy is just stating his opinion. He doesn't speak for Islam. The four schools of Islamic thought all disagree with him. And heck, even now we see Dan Peterson disagrees with him. He is an anomaly, and I wished, I truly wished all Muslims were Sufis. But they're not.

As I said before, I haven't even thought about the Islamic issue in years. You'd be hard pressed to find anything I've written about this stuff since 2007. My interests have drifted, but I still know enough about the subject matter to know that Dan is trying to do exactly what this Sufi guy is doing. He is essentially trying to assure us all that there is no threat. Well, there is. And it doesn't make me a bigot to understand the reality.

Now, I know some people who are bigots on this issue. I have an extended family member who walks through the mall and says with an audible tone "Muslim alert" every time someone with a darker complexion walks by. I told him if he ever did that around me again that I'd smack the crap out of him.

[_RayAgostini]

And yes, Australia has its problems trying to keep Sharia law from becoming a reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/m ... ia/2717096

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6097889992

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ralia.html

LOL. Kev, you shouldn't make a fool of yourself by such comments, nor taking several media reports seriously. There are many others which give a broader picture. What are the chances of Australia adopting Sharia?

There's a Chance

"problems trying to keep Sharia law from becoming a reality".

I won't embarrass you with the truth.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Dear. God.

[_Kevin Graham]

LOL. Kev, you shouldn't make a fool of yourself by such comments, nor taking several media reports seriously. There are many others which give a broader picture. What are the chances of Australia adopting Sharia?

Probably zero, but that's really beside the point. I posted these to point out that Autralia has a problem with sharia and that it already exists within Muslim communities whether Australian law incorporates it or not. The same is true for Canada. Muslims have taken measures to see that it is accepted, but I agree with you that there is probably no chance of that happening. I was just showing you a couple of examples from Australia that can be read online. Unfortunately, this doesn't include taxi-cab conversations.

I won't embarrass you with the truth.

What truth Ray? You're bouncing all over the place and not addressing any of my points.