Here is the second part of the FreedomFest 2008 debate between Professor Daniel Peterson and me. The stated topic was something like "Islam: Radical or Peaceful?," which is a false dichotomy, and as you can see in Part I, the moderator stated the topic as I have it here: "Islam: Threat or Not?"
In any case, the topic of the debate was fairly clear to everyone, although Dr. Peterson did seem to wish to restate it himself as "Spencer: Threat or Not?" In this present segment he concludes his case for that, and about midway through the video above I begin my response. It will continue in part 3.
Your point of departure from Dr. Peterson's emphasis, and basic difference of perception, is clearly set forward, Mr. Spencer. This will be a memorable--I hope, definitive--debate.
Waiting for the next segment with baited breath...
Please don't make us wait too long!
Very well done so far. Mr Spencer you have remarquably extracted the substance idea of the long winded statement from Peterson, in order to address the forest and not the trees. Good job.
Mr Spencer, please get famous in India and help the BJP in their mission. You books should be advertised in India. Please think about it....
Already, we can see that Mr Spencer looks down to his 'paper' on a par with Mr Peterson's looking at the audience. Mr Spencer is speaking to the audience and not just rattling off diatribe from a piece of paper that Peterson did, no doubt losing interest after the first 30 seconds.
It shows already, of the knowledge of Mr Spencer compared to Mr Peterson, rattling off the names of the four schools of Sunni Muslim Jurisprudence as natural as exhaling.
All I would really like is to see people like Peterson, removed from the West and put to live in Islamic lands. They are quite happy to denounce those who seek to protect Western culture and attack them for being wary of Islam. They will continue to do their jobs, safe in the knowledge that people are dying to protect them from outside attack, only because they have a different culture to theirs. We have many like Peterson in the UK. Correction; we have TOO many like Peterson in the UK, who are quite happy to attack Western Culture while defending Islam.
It really makes me sick listening to fools like Peterson. I am looking forward to Part 3 though and the rest of Mr Spencer's speech.
I like where you stopped...with the word 'false'.
Peterson writes a book in five minutes, and your supposed to respond to all that?
You were doing fine, but it is an unfair assignment...
For anyone who was actually listening, Peterson lost his argument when he changed the topic from Islams danger, to you...
Peterson's a good case of 'straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel'.
By the way...Happy Thanksgiving to all...
Even you Abdullah M, if you pop in to back up Peterson...
Peterson is a dhimwit slave who must be PC to keep his job.
He is no match for RS, who doesn't have to be confined and muzzled by the PC demands of a 21st century American university.
Torture!
But the world is full of Petersens and the Robert Spencers are rarer than hens teeth.
This is what we're up against, folks. Petersonish fairytales and the belief that we can, somehow must (!) get along, if we just appease them enough.
I like Robert Spencer's honest and frank approach concerning this matter.
Dr. Peterson seems to imply that within Islam, the different religious schools of thought represent a diversity in interpreting what they believe in and how they act, based upon that belief.
He clearly misrepresents Islam as a type of 'social club' or democratic think thank, whereby members are free to 'agree to disagree' with one another and to ultimately draw their very own distinct conclusions.
While in reality, all schools of Islam ultimately draw the same conclusions. Notwithstanding the fact that they interpret the hadiths in their own way, the conclusions they draw from their findings perfectly overlap, because they are completely the same.
So, while there are differences on the one hand, on the other hand the outcome is still the same. Basically, they agree on everything. There are no fundamental differences to their approach, contrary to what Dr. Peterson would like the audience to believe.
Now to me that suggests that the differences between islamic schools of thought are rather academical and superficial. Islam as a whole is NOT a belief system that incorporates pluralism, but rather one that merges 'differing interpretations' into an all-encompassing uniform way of thinking.
Robert Spencer has clearly pointed that out. He is a brave man.
How foolish of me not to see heretofore that it's the Spencerian threat, not the Islamic threat, we really should be on our guard against. Well, Dr. Peterson, thank you for your terrific insight into the benevolent religion of Islam. And think of all those who preceded the good doctor, folks like Churchill, Russell, Renan, De Tocqueville, Quincy Adams and Jefferson, who believed all of Islam disturbing and rotten. How misinformed they were. How horribly prejudiced. It's nice to know that we have enlightened individuals out there like Dr. Peterson to tell us that Islam is OK, minus some rogues here and there who misinterpret the great faith, and that it's the Spencers of the world who are the real problem. I feel better and safer already.
I feel better and safer already.
Posted by: Wellington
Yeah me too, I would feel even better if I could remember what I did with my beer...
Thanks for posting this. Dr. Peterson provides a rational, spirited defense of his views. I think he does a good job of quoting Robert and citing examples as he makes his points.
Dr Peterson refers several times to moderate muslims that are trying to reform Islam by talking with the ummna and challenging the views of the radical mullahs. I'd like to see examples of this. I'd like to see the moderate muslims refute violent jihad while talking directly to a muslim audience, instead of pretending that jihad always means something else when the talk to infidels.
Some notes in response to Peterson's comments:
1. It is interesting that Peterson implies that secular Muslims are not “believing Muslims.”
2. Peterson rightly points out that the Quranic verses must be understood in context, and he mentions Asbab al-Nuzul. (The circumstances or occasions in which verses were revealed are dealt with in works of Asbab al-Nuzul). Such works involve linking up various ahadith and parts of Sira to the appropriate Quranic verses, providing the circumstantial context. For anyone who is familiar with the Hadith and Sira, though, it is clear that the context they provide to the Quran does not make for a more moderate interpretation. Rather, they provide the gruesome details of aggressive surprise attacks, assassinations, imperialistic military expeditions, mass slaughter, rape, slavery, and so on, carried out under Muhammad’s orders and supervision. Note that the Quran states that to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah (4:80).
3. Peterson abandons his own admonitions regarding the importance of context when he states the apologetic line about the word jihad (j-h-d) not being found “conjoined” with the word for war (harabah) in the Quran. The idea here is apparently that this lack of direct textual contiguity will allow for non-violent interpretations of the j-h-d words. However, non-violent interpretations of many of the verses containing j-h-d would have to ignore context. For example, the context of the use of the j-h-d word in verse 9:81 was in reference to the military expedition that reached Tabuk, generally regarded as part of an aggressive imperialistic mission launched by Muhammad. Those who stayed back from the military expedition (i.e., the struggle) were scolded in verse 9:81. In the 3:140-146 passage, again the subject matter is battle and j-h-d is used in the same passage as words for death, fighting, and martyrs. Struggle (j-h-d) in the Quran is used in the context of fighting, migrating, spending wealth, enduring hardship, and exerting oneself in various ways, for the cause of Allah. Jihad (struggle) is the more general term, qital (q-t-l; fighting) is one specific form of struggle. The Quran discusses j-h-d fee sabeeli Allahi (struggle in the way of Allah) and q-t-l fee sabeeli Allahi (fighting or battle in the way of Allah). Verse 9:111 glorifies those who “fight in the way of Allah and [who] shall slay and be slain…” Spending “in the way of Allah” in verse 8:60, according to Ibn Abbas, is mentioned in the context of an order to prepare to strike terror into the enemies of Allah, and refers to spending on horses and arms.
4. Peterson claims that the Quran could be interpreted as historically circumscribed. Again, the idea is here seems to be that if Muslims regard the Quran in this way, perhaps in whole or in part (e.g., leaving the verses of fighting in the 7th century), this will allow a more moderate and peaceful religion to emerge. The problem is that the Quran and Hadith indicate that the harsh policies of fighting and jihad apply for all time until the Last Day.
33:62. “(Such was) the practice (approved) of God among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of God.”
The practice approved there was Muhammad’s threat to slaughter the hypocrites, those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who spread false news (33:60-61).
Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4719:
It his been narrated on the authority of Umair b. Umm Hani who said: I heard Mu'awiya say (while delivering a sermon from the pulpit) that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A group of people from my Umma will continue to obey Allah's Command, and those who desert or oppose them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will be dominating the people until Allah's Command is executed (i. e. Resurrection is established).
Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4717 (and see 4715-4724): It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2526:
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2478:
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.
Peterson points out that not all of the Ahadith are valid. This doesn’t help much, because important ahadith that are used to support the violent and imperialistic policies, and which are cited in Islamic fiqh, are in many cases ranked genuine, mutawatir, such as these:
Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33 (see 30-35): It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808 (also Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64): Narrated 'Ali: I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection."
In addition, major policies in the Quran and Hadith are not limited geographically. Islam is a mission to all humankind:
34:28. (Arberry) “We have sent thee* not, except to mankind entire, good tidings to bear, and warning; but most men do not know it.” (also 7:157-158, and others).
In the Hadith, Muhammad confirms that he "was sent to all mankind." Qaradawi, the popular and influential Muslim scholar, writes:
"1. In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.”
2. Ibn Hibban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “This matter (i.e. Islam) will spread to cover all areas where there is night and day. Allah will never leave a house in a rural area or in urban community without its people being Muslims. Honor is for those who embrace it (i.e. Islam) while disbelievers are doomed to disgrace and humiliation.”
This hadith, along with many others, give us glad tidings that the patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth and that the strength of this state will grow and become obvious to all. This also denotes good news for the long-cherished hope of revival of Muslims’ unity and rebirth of Islamic Caliphate."
Furthermore, there is the problem that Muslims today have not abandoned the idea of expanding and further establishing Islamic rule. An average of 65% of Muslims sampled in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, and Pakistan support the goal ‘to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate,’ (See World Public Opinion survey).
5. Peterson cites the claims of Ernst and Watts that imperialism in Islam was only a retrospective interpretation from the Imperial age of Islam. I wonder what age of Islam was not imperial. Efraim Karsh has argued that Islam has been consistently imperialistic and the policies of bin Laden et al. today are a continuation of that tradition. In any case, Muhammad was imperialistic and so were his successors. The Quran and Hadith contain statements that are clearly imperialistic (e.g., see Q 9:5, 9:29-33; 61:9, 48:28, 8:39, 2:193) and see such ahadith as these:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:
Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause." (also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 355; and Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4684 (also 4685, 4686, 4687)"
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." […] Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." […]
6. Peterson also mentions that jihad may be interpreted as defensive. The Quran (in 9:5, 9:29, 9:123, 33:26-27) and Hadith (see above examples, and many others) order offensive fighting. Another significant problem is in the Islamic conception of what is “defensive”—Muhammad ordered the assassination of critics to “defend” Islam
Another excellent post, Kinana. My compliments. Would be interested to see Peterson try and refute them. But that won't happen.
Peterson does not seem like a total dhimmi of Armstrong degre, in as much as he can admit that Muhammad was not some flower child, proto-Ghandi. However, he seems to be living in a dream world by citing a few exceptions to the rule (and who's to say how exceptional they really are, and in reality their degree of exception is equal to their degree of apostasy) and by citing how it is possible to reinterpret core islamic texts non-literally. It is also possible to win the powerball, and even more so for me to win it than to see an islamic reform in my lifetime. But he finally goes off the deep-end end by citing "pioneering" dhimmi "scholars" like Carl Ernst.
Islam is what it is and it never be internally reformed into something palatable to Western sensibilities. In fact, without the standard set by the West, no Muslim would ever consider the need for reform. The so-called reformers are really trying to infuse with non-islamic ideals, which is why they will fail. There is nothing in Islam to facilitate reform.
What does this mean - permanent war with islam? Unfortunately, yes! We cannot help it, Islam declared war on us, not the other way around. Peterson's willful denial does not make this not so...