cksalmon wrote:Nice words, indeed, about Dr. Peterson--and quite sincere, I'd suppose.
Unfortunately, it seems like he was just using DCP to hurl a zinger at Khaleel Mohammed. Those two (Spencer and Mohammed) don't play well with each other.
Interestingly, On Amazon for DCPs book about Mohammad there is a review by a Muslim that claims " I have contacted the Author of the Foreword, and found out that Islamic Scholar Khaleel Mohammad was tricked into writing of his foreword and has not even read the Blueprint before the publication of this deceiving work."
TAK wrote:Interestingly, On Amazon for DCPs book about Mohammad there is a review by a Muslim that claims " I have contacted the Author of the Foreword, and found out that Islamic Scholar Khaleel Mohammad was tricked into writing of his foreword and has not even read the Blueprint before the publication of this deceiving work."
Both DCP and Khaleel Mohammed respond to the above review in the comments section:
DCP wrote:I won't comment on this reviewer's dislike of my book. He's free to like it or dislike it, as he chooses. He is even free to misrepresent it, as when, for example, he claims that I say that the Qur'an "depict[s] Jesus as God Incarnate." I do nothing of the sort. Indeed, I would have to be insane to make such a grossly and transparently false claim.
But he is not free to misrepresent Professor Khaleel Mohammed, the author of the foreword to the book. Professor Mohammed was not tricked into writing the foreword, and continues to endorse the book, as anybody can easily find out by contacting him. To say otherwise borders on the slanderous.
Khaleel Mohammed wrote:I think I ought to add my voice to this critique of Dr. Peterson's work. I was indeed contacted by the poster of the critical review, and I stated that i did not see the actual manuscript, but reviewed the material that was part of a larger text. These two are identical.
I have, in my foreword, noted what my observations and I do feel that the book is an excellent academic approach. While Muslims may not be comfortable with some of the comments of academic authors, this does not in and of itself make a work unreliable. In all honesty, I have not, even in my rereading of the book, seen Dr. Peterson state that the the Q depicts God as incarnate.
Even if he did, and can support his argument with evidence, then the work would still be an excellent read as it would probe at the very foundations of Islam. Hans Kung was among the writers who recommended the work, as has David Noel Freedman...and these are two scholars whose objectivity is beyond question. I join them in lauding the book that, while it deals with Islam from the viewpoint of academic neutrality, still quotes from Muslim sources.