Here is the fourth part of last summer's FreedomFest 2008 debate between Professor Daniel Peterson and me on the topic of "Islam: Threat or Not?," beginning the Q&A period.
You can see Part 1 here; Part 2 here; and Part 3 here.
I am suspicious of people, who when talking about Islam, use the word God, instead of the name Allah. They are only interchangeable by intellectual fraud.
There is a great deception in that.
Anyone who believes that Allah is God has fallen for the deception...
The specious claim by Prof. Peterson and others that the Koran’s violent verses can be read as simply the responses to particular wars/battles that Muhammad’s followers were engaged in at the time and were not meant to be defining of Islam’s demands on Muslims I find infuriating for its lamebrain naiveté. Such “dictations” from Allah, unqualified and straightforward and reinforced by the hadiths, were clearly meant to be exemplary and historically they were naturally taken that way (at least if practically possible). That was the violent, intolerant and supremacist Islam that was clearly intended.
Moderate & peace loving Muslims naturally want to ignore these indications of violent fascism since otherwise they would have to face the choice ultimately of either (1) courageously leaving Islam a sane man looking for some other spiritual guidance or (2) medieval mind-shut.
It doesn’t help to point out that, say, 9:4 is just about slaughtering pagans – that’s hardly a recommendation for a civilized religion.
It doesn’t help to say 9:29 and following verses are only about violently fighting stubborn Christian & Jews until there is world domination – hardly a recommendation either.
And I’m not sure if it really helps to encourage moderate self-deceiving Muslims to try to transform or edit out the verses of the Koran and make an essentially new Islam. I think it’s probably better, through ridicule of the ridiculous, to encourage Muslims to simply leave the nonsense. Is this really impracticable?
Or more usually - re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Either way, this was another great awareness-raiser. There seems to be much agreement between these two scholars, and yet how critical is that small degree of difference.
I'm constantly amazed at the reluctance of media and politicians to wake up and start to defend ourselves from the Islamic threat.
Also, seeing the video of Melanie Phillips shows again how much more baffled and complacent are our leaders in the UK than even in USA.
Some of us must be failing in our duty to get the message out. new years resolution:- must shout louder.
Peterson basically admits in this Part that what Spencer has been proclaiming all along is true --- that there are many elements of Islam that are, and have been, backward --- and that justify warfare and hegemony. It makes Spencer's retort to Peterson's specious desire all the more critical to understand.
Everyone from day 1 has said that there is a difference between muslims and Islam. The point in this statement is that you can pick and choose whatever you like and still call yourself muslim. The problem is that you can't pick and choose what OTHERS like or want to follow. And if these elements are there, assuredly, as Peterson concedes, then how do we ever get away from them? How do we ever convince, especially if they actually have more of the historical support, those who want to believe in these elements and carry them out, that their minds in interpreting these things are incorrect? The answer is obvious, due to the structure and doctrine that "moderate" and "extremist" muslims already agree on (quran as immutable and directly dispensed to Mo in its eternal form), whether they believe in all the other stuff or not!
How can you be that positive? Given the example of Muhammad you can see why people do what they do. There needs to be far more disagreed on for there to be a true distinction of moderates and extremists; that is, they need to argue that things like the Quran and Shari'a not be taken seriously. Just thinking about that statement shows you how far they have to go. Imagine saying to a pious muslim, "You guys need to develop ways where you take the Quran and Shari'a law as less meaningful." He would probably take up arms to your suggestion! And this shows you how integral these things are, I am sorry to say.
OK, let me see if I understand Dr. Peterson's argument correctly. Yes, there are many violent elements in Islam but there are also many peaceful elements as well. Therefore, we should really, really, really hope Muslims around the world will eventually only look to the peaceful aspects of Islam and ignore all the many troubling, violence-encouraging elements that exist in Mo's creed. And, oh, maybe a lot of the most martial factors found in Islam are exclusively applicable to seventh-century Arabia----at least let's hope so about this too. And all this is a plan?
Shouldn't a religion, especially one that is proselytizing in make-up (as both Christianity and Islam are), have no violent directives in it for any kind of action on this earth? Christianity is devoid of calls to act violently at times. So is Buddhism. So are many other faiths. Islam? Well, that's a different matter, now isn't? Dr. Peterson's plan is a prescription to do next to nothing (except continuing to hope for the best and having nice chats with so-called moderate Muslims), all the while letting Islam by whatever kind of jihad du jour it favors continue to expand and envelop other non-Muslim societies. It'a plan for suicide by terminal wishing and hoping.
It is high time that somebody made the effort of objectively quantifying the number of verses in the Quran that explicitly refer to the ordained violation of human rights.
I suggest making a comparative table : in the left column a total percentage of moderate/spiritual/tolerant Quran verses, in the right column a total percentage for all verses that advocate the curbing of human rights.
I bet the percentage in the right column would far outweigh that in the right column.
Now that would probably shut Dr. Peterson up for good ! I have had it with this man blabbing on about different ways of reading the Quran !
Bill Warner at his Center for the Study of Political Islam has, I am told, conducted such a quantitative study on the Quran and Hadith.
Another project, which is not complete, is the skeptics annotated quran, which notes verses in different categories such as violence, intolerance, etc.
An article posted at Islam-Watch by Amber Pawlik also describes a study in which she took a random sample of approximately 200 verses from the Quran (and a pilot sample of about 30 verses) and classified them according to content, e.g., with categories such as Hatred toward disbelievers, good verses, etc. There were less than 5% good verses, and over 50% of verses that were hateful toward disbelievers.
I carried out a similar study, with a random sample of 100 verses, and found results roughly similar to Pawlik's. In examining the subsample of verses about disbelievers in context, zero percent (0%) were positive, about 97 to 98% were negative, and about 2 to 3% were neutral.
I think all of the above projects are too informal. We need a more precise and scientific approach. Nevertheless, the above projects do give a reasonable idea of the relative proportions of the different kinds of verses.
Peterson sounds much more reasonable in this segment. His analogy comparing the existence of peaceful elements of Islam to the existence of white crows is apt; i.e., the peaceful elements in Islam are rare exceptions. His statement that the Islamic world is “dysfunctional” shows a realistic perspective. Peterson expresses reservations and concerns about lack of effectiveness of moderate Muslims today (i.e., they are on the defensive or are silent), and recognizes that the militants are winning. He also refers to Spencer’s critique of Islam as a “bracing tonic.”
Unfortunately, Peterson (who is not an Islam apologist) once again considers apologetic lines that are not likely to be of much use for the project to reform Islam. We’ve examined all these lines before.
-Apologetic line: the distinction between Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb may have been worded explicitly as such a couple of centuries after Muhammad’s time. (Thus the distinction may be regarded by Muslim reformers as not an integral part of Islam)
-Critical rebuttal: The basic division between believer and non-believer is established in the Quran, as are the related notions that Muslims have divine permission to capture non-Muslim territory (33:26-27), that they should shun non-Muslims (9:28, 5:51, 8:72-74, etc.) and establish Islamic rule (5:3, 5:44-49, 7:156-158) until “all religion is for Allah” (2:193, 8:39) and Islam conquers all other religions (9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9). In the Hadith, Muhammad is quoted explicitly as ordering non-Muslims expelled from the Arabian Peninsula.
-Apologetic line: Spencer’s analysis is “selective” (and therefore faulty), a “prosecutor’s brief”.
-Critical rebuttal: Don’t we need prosecutors? Islam critics such as Spencer have a job to do, primarily of identifying and describing the problems in Islam. When you go to a doctor or a mechanic, they focus on the problem that needs to be dealt with; they don’t waste a lot of time talking about the parts that don’t need fixing. That said, it is not true that Spencer never acknowledges the good parts of Islam. Besides, as Peterson himself acknowledges, the good elements are rare as white crows.
-Apologetic line: The Quran can be read in such a way that the verses of warfare in limited to Muhammad’s time (i.e., historically circumscribed).
-Critical rebuttal: The Quran itself states that Allah’s policies, including regarding violent slaughter of non-Muslims and hypocrites, never change (33:60-62), that Muhammad (who was among other things a military commander) is a good example to follow (33:21), and that if you love Allah, follow Muhammad (3:31). Secondly, in the effort to circumscribe the verses historically, one would have to use the Hadith to find the historical circumstances of the Quranic verses (which in many cases otherwise read as open-ended). The Hadith contain yet more open-ended categorical commands to fight the unbelievers until they accept Islam (or Islamic rule) and Muhammad. In the Sira, Muhammad and his men pledge to wage war against all humankind. The Hadiths state that a group of the Muslims will fight for the religion until the Last Day; and that Islam will eventually rule over all corners of the Earth. (I’ve presented verses and ahadith in support of this in a previous thread in this series, response to Peterson, Part 2).
-Apologetic line: Islam had an expansionist imperialist period about 200 years after Muhammad.
-Critical rebuttal: What period in the history of Islam did not have either imperialism or a significant movement to revive imperialism? Islam had an expansionist and imperialist period under Muhammad’s direct supervision and under the direction of the first four “rightly guided” caliphs.
-Apologetic line: The sword verse 9:5 refers only to killing polytheists (assumption: so that’s okay), and 9:29 only commands Muslims to kill or subjugate those who do not believe in God (assumption: so that’s okay).
-Critical rebuttal. That’s not okay! I’m surprised at how often and how persistently Muslim apologists and Christians defending Islam cite this line. Perhaps they assume that most of the people in their audience won’t care if those targeted for slaughter are not Muslim or People of the Book. 9:5 and 9:29 command Muslims to kill non-Muslims who do not submit to Islam, Islamic rule, or Islamic terms of truce or temporary protection (9:6). As Spencer points out, 9:29 targets those People of the Book who do not believe in the Messenger (i.e., Muhammad, and there are several other verses that require belief in Muhammad and the Quran). So the only people left safe after these exclusions are Muslims (and the Hadith state that safety is attained by embracing Islam) or people who convert to Islam.
Robert also cited 2:62 as a verse that Peterson could have mentioned as seemingly tolerant of Christians and Jews. Of course, when we read the full Quran, it becomes clear that basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism are considered disbelief in Islam, and vice versa (at the very least, mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not accept Muhammad; and Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God—which is rejected as false, polytheism, grounds to be put in hell, fought, etc., in the Quran). In addition, the phrase “believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness” in 2:62 is clearly meant in the terms laid out in the Quran. Obviously, Christians and Jews have a different understanding than the Islamic or Quranic definitions of those terms (e.g., how many Jews and Christians would accept, as the Quran claims, that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims?). Believers must believe as Muhammad believes (2:137). Also, the tolerant view of 2:62 (a rather ambiguous verse) is difficult to reconcile with 3:85 (a clear, unambiguous verse), which states that Islam is the only acceptable religion. Lastly, the Hadith are clear that all non-Muslims must convert to Islam or accept Islamic rule, or they will be targeted for warfare, killing, or subjugation.
Lastly, I have a question: Why is there so much emphasis (e.g., by scholars like Peterson) on defending and promoting "moderate" Muslims, but not on helping apostates? The latter are in greater need of our help, and would be of greater help to us.
Kinana of Khaybar: As usual, you're right on target. I admire your knowledge of Islam as I do the way you argue your case. I could almost think you're an attorney.
The weakest point of Peterson's argument was his conflation of 'God' and 'Allah' as though they are one and the same. Robert was right in pointing out the differences. Besides that, the more elementary question would be - has there ever been any religion that has prescribed punishment to adherents of a different religion for not being true to that other faith? The claim of Islam to punish Christians for not being Christian enough, or Jews for not being Jewish enough, is beneath even mockery.
Oh yes, and to try and explain away 9:5 as applying only to polytheists is hollow, since it implies that Dr Peterson would be okay with Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Taoists and Animists being slaughtered in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.
Thanks for the positive feedback. There's still plenty I don't know, and don't care to know, about Islam. My interests, like those of most readers here, focus on the problems in Islam and the threat it poses to non-Muslims.
Borg,
I've never been a Muslim. I've worked on some projects with ex-Muslims and have read a lot of material by ex-Muslims.
IP,
Yes, the Quran overall implies that the true Christians and Jews were the pure monotheists who submitted (i.e., were literally Muslims), and, later, that they accepted Muhammad and his revelations as the words of Allah. In short, they have to become Muslims, otherwise they are punished in this world and in hell.
Kinana - I find your postings very helpful. Clear and information-packed.
And I completely agree with your final point: the non-muslim world should focus a lot more effort on helping the bona fide apostates from Islam.
The thing is: they *know* exactly what woke them up and made them decide that Islam was a dead-end. They know which arguments, or which experiences, work; and which don't. So they're in a position to advise Infidels who are trying to deprogram Muslims.
So many of them - Ayaan, Ibn Warraq, Patrick Sookhdeo, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, the ex-Muslims on Fr Botros' team, Nonie Darwish, Magdi Cristiano Allam, and many, many others less well known - are hard at work raising the alarm (among the kafir whose ranks they have joined) while also trying their best to deprogram their former co-religionists. They have to be looked after and kept alive and safe so they can do their stuff.
The more Muslims we can successfully deprogram, the more happy people there will be in the world...and the safer the world will be for everyone, too.
Yes islam is a threat!
It's a cult of crazy's that are going way too damn far!!!
I am suspicious of people, who when talking about Islam, use the word God, instead of the name Allah. They are only interchangeable by intellectual fraud.
There is a great deception in that.
Anyone who believes that Allah is God has fallen for the deception...
The specious claim by Prof. Peterson and others that the Koran’s violent verses can be read as simply the responses to particular wars/battles that Muhammad’s followers were engaged in at the time and were not meant to be defining of Islam’s demands on Muslims I find infuriating for its lamebrain naiveté. Such “dictations” from Allah, unqualified and straightforward and reinforced by the hadiths, were clearly meant to be exemplary and historically they were naturally taken that way (at least if practically possible). That was the violent, intolerant and supremacist Islam that was clearly intended.
Moderate & peace loving Muslims naturally want to ignore these indications of violent fascism since otherwise they would have to face the choice ultimately of either (1) courageously leaving Islam a sane man looking for some other spiritual guidance or (2) medieval mind-shut.
It doesn’t help to point out that, say, 9:4 is just about slaughtering pagans – that’s hardly a recommendation for a civilized religion.
It doesn’t help to say 9:29 and following verses are only about violently fighting stubborn Christian & Jews until there is world domination – hardly a recommendation either.
And I’m not sure if it really helps to encourage moderate self-deceiving Muslims to try to transform or edit out the verses of the Koran and make an essentially new Islam. I think it’s probably better, through ridicule of the ridiculous, to encourage Muslims to simply leave the nonsense. Is this really impracticable?
'Playing shuffleboard on the Titanic'
Or more usually - re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Either way, this was another great awareness-raiser. There seems to be much agreement between these two scholars, and yet how critical is that small degree of difference.
I'm constantly amazed at the reluctance of media and politicians to wake up and start to defend ourselves from the Islamic threat.
Also, seeing the video of Melanie Phillips shows again how much more baffled and complacent are our leaders in the UK than even in USA.
Some of us must be failing in our duty to get the message out. new years resolution:- must shout louder.
Peterson basically admits in this Part that what Spencer has been proclaiming all along is true --- that there are many elements of Islam that are, and have been, backward --- and that justify warfare and hegemony. It makes Spencer's retort to Peterson's specious desire all the more critical to understand.
Everyone from day 1 has said that there is a difference between muslims and Islam. The point in this statement is that you can pick and choose whatever you like and still call yourself muslim. The problem is that you can't pick and choose what OTHERS like or want to follow. And if these elements are there, assuredly, as Peterson concedes, then how do we ever get away from them? How do we ever convince, especially if they actually have more of the historical support, those who want to believe in these elements and carry them out, that their minds in interpreting these things are incorrect? The answer is obvious, due to the structure and doctrine that "moderate" and "extremist" muslims already agree on (quran as immutable and directly dispensed to Mo in its eternal form), whether they believe in all the other stuff or not!
How can you be that positive? Given the example of Muhammad you can see why people do what they do. There needs to be far more disagreed on for there to be a true distinction of moderates and extremists; that is, they need to argue that things like the Quran and Shari'a not be taken seriously. Just thinking about that statement shows you how far they have to go. Imagine saying to a pious muslim, "You guys need to develop ways where you take the Quran and Shari'a law as less meaningful." He would probably take up arms to your suggestion! And this shows you how integral these things are, I am sorry to say.
OK, let me see if I understand Dr. Peterson's argument correctly. Yes, there are many violent elements in Islam but there are also many peaceful elements as well. Therefore, we should really, really, really hope Muslims around the world will eventually only look to the peaceful aspects of Islam and ignore all the many troubling, violence-encouraging elements that exist in Mo's creed. And, oh, maybe a lot of the most martial factors found in Islam are exclusively applicable to seventh-century Arabia----at least let's hope so about this too. And all this is a plan?
Shouldn't a religion, especially one that is proselytizing in make-up (as both Christianity and Islam are), have no violent directives in it for any kind of action on this earth? Christianity is devoid of calls to act violently at times. So is Buddhism. So are many other faiths. Islam? Well, that's a different matter, now isn't? Dr. Peterson's plan is a prescription to do next to nothing (except continuing to hope for the best and having nice chats with so-called moderate Muslims), all the while letting Islam by whatever kind of jihad du jour it favors continue to expand and envelop other non-Muslim societies. It'a plan for suicide by terminal wishing and hoping.
It is high time that somebody made the effort of objectively quantifying the number of verses in the Quran that explicitly refer to the ordained violation of human rights.
I suggest making a comparative table : in the left column a total percentage of moderate/spiritual/tolerant Quran verses, in the right column a total percentage for all verses that advocate the curbing of human rights.
I bet the percentage in the right column would far outweigh that in the right column.
Now that would probably shut Dr. Peterson up for good ! I have had it with this man blabbing on about different ways of reading the Quran !
flippin' heck,
Bill Warner at his Center for the Study of Political Islam has, I am told, conducted such a quantitative study on the Quran and Hadith.
Another project, which is not complete, is the skeptics annotated quran, which notes verses in different categories such as violence, intolerance, etc.
An article posted at Islam-Watch by Amber Pawlik also describes a study in which she took a random sample of approximately 200 verses from the Quran (and a pilot sample of about 30 verses) and classified them according to content, e.g., with categories such as Hatred toward disbelievers, good verses, etc. There were less than 5% good verses, and over 50% of verses that were hateful toward disbelievers.
I carried out a similar study, with a random sample of 100 verses, and found results roughly similar to Pawlik's. In examining the subsample of verses about disbelievers in context, zero percent (0%) were positive, about 97 to 98% were negative, and about 2 to 3% were neutral.
I think all of the above projects are too informal. We need a more precise and scientific approach. Nevertheless, the above projects do give a reasonable idea of the relative proportions of the different kinds of verses.
(4th attempt)
Peterson sounds much more reasonable in this segment. His analogy comparing the existence of peaceful elements of Islam to the existence of white crows is apt; i.e., the peaceful elements in Islam are rare exceptions. His statement that the Islamic world is “dysfunctional” shows a realistic perspective. Peterson expresses reservations and concerns about lack of effectiveness of moderate Muslims today (i.e., they are on the defensive or are silent), and recognizes that the militants are winning. He also refers to Spencer’s critique of Islam as a “bracing tonic.”
Unfortunately, Peterson (who is not an Islam apologist) once again considers apologetic lines that are not likely to be of much use for the project to reform Islam. We’ve examined all these lines before.
-Apologetic line: the distinction between Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb may have been worded explicitly as such a couple of centuries after Muhammad’s time. (Thus the distinction may be regarded by Muslim reformers as not an integral part of Islam)
-Critical rebuttal: The basic division between believer and non-believer is established in the Quran, as are the related notions that Muslims have divine permission to capture non-Muslim territory (33:26-27), that they should shun non-Muslims (9:28, 5:51, 8:72-74, etc.) and establish Islamic rule (5:3, 5:44-49, 7:156-158) until “all religion is for Allah” (2:193, 8:39) and Islam conquers all other religions (9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9). In the Hadith, Muhammad is quoted explicitly as ordering non-Muslims expelled from the Arabian Peninsula.
-Apologetic line: Spencer’s analysis is “selective” (and therefore faulty), a “prosecutor’s brief”.
-Critical rebuttal: Don’t we need prosecutors? Islam critics such as Spencer have a job to do, primarily of identifying and describing the problems in Islam. When you go to a doctor or a mechanic, they focus on the problem that needs to be dealt with; they don’t waste a lot of time talking about the parts that don’t need fixing. That said, it is not true that Spencer never acknowledges the good parts of Islam. Besides, as Peterson himself acknowledges, the good elements are rare as white crows.
-Apologetic line: The Quran can be read in such a way that the verses of warfare in limited to Muhammad’s time (i.e., historically circumscribed).
-Critical rebuttal: The Quran itself states that Allah’s policies, including regarding violent slaughter of non-Muslims and hypocrites, never change (33:60-62), that Muhammad (who was among other things a military commander) is a good example to follow (33:21), and that if you love Allah, follow Muhammad (3:31). Secondly, in the effort to circumscribe the verses historically, one would have to use the Hadith to find the historical circumstances of the Quranic verses (which in many cases otherwise read as open-ended). The Hadith contain yet more open-ended categorical commands to fight the unbelievers until they accept Islam (or Islamic rule) and Muhammad. In the Sira, Muhammad and his men pledge to wage war against all humankind. The Hadiths state that a group of the Muslims will fight for the religion until the Last Day; and that Islam will eventually rule over all corners of the Earth. (I’ve presented verses and ahadith in support of this in a previous thread in this series, response to Peterson, Part 2).
-Apologetic line: Islam had an expansionist imperialist period about 200 years after Muhammad.
-Critical rebuttal: What period in the history of Islam did not have either imperialism or a significant movement to revive imperialism? Islam had an expansionist and imperialist period under Muhammad’s direct supervision and under the direction of the first four “rightly guided” caliphs.
-Apologetic line: The sword verse 9:5 refers only to killing polytheists (assumption: so that’s okay), and 9:29 only commands Muslims to kill or subjugate those who do not believe in God (assumption: so that’s okay).
-Critical rebuttal. That’s not okay! I’m surprised at how often and how persistently Muslim apologists and Christians defending Islam cite this line. Perhaps they assume that most of the people in their audience won’t care if those targeted for slaughter are not Muslim or People of the Book. 9:5 and 9:29 command Muslims to kill non-Muslims who do not submit to Islam, Islamic rule, or Islamic terms of truce or temporary protection (9:6). As Spencer points out, 9:29 targets those People of the Book who do not believe in the Messenger (i.e., Muhammad, and there are several other verses that require belief in Muhammad and the Quran). So the only people left safe after these exclusions are Muslims (and the Hadith state that safety is attained by embracing Islam) or people who convert to Islam.
Robert also cited 2:62 as a verse that Peterson could have mentioned as seemingly tolerant of Christians and Jews. Of course, when we read the full Quran, it becomes clear that basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism are considered disbelief in Islam, and vice versa (at the very least, mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not accept Muhammad; and Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God—which is rejected as false, polytheism, grounds to be put in hell, fought, etc., in the Quran). In addition, the phrase “believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness” in 2:62 is clearly meant in the terms laid out in the Quran. Obviously, Christians and Jews have a different understanding than the Islamic or Quranic definitions of those terms (e.g., how many Jews and Christians would accept, as the Quran claims, that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims?). Believers must believe as Muhammad believes (2:137). Also, the tolerant view of 2:62 (a rather ambiguous verse) is difficult to reconcile with 3:85 (a clear, unambiguous verse), which states that Islam is the only acceptable religion. Lastly, the Hadith are clear that all non-Muslims must convert to Islam or accept Islamic rule, or they will be targeted for warfare, killing, or subjugation.
Lastly, I have a question: Why is there so much emphasis (e.g., by scholars like Peterson) on defending and promoting "moderate" Muslims, but not on helping apostates? The latter are in greater need of our help, and would be of greater help to us.
Kinana of Khaybar: As usual, you're right on target. I admire your knowledge of Islam as I do the way you argue your case. I could almost think you're an attorney.
Kinana-
Were you a muslim?
Bravo, Kinana.
Kinana
The weakest point of Peterson's argument was his conflation of 'God' and 'Allah' as though they are one and the same. Robert was right in pointing out the differences. Besides that, the more elementary question would be - has there ever been any religion that has prescribed punishment to adherents of a different religion for not being true to that other faith? The claim of Islam to punish Christians for not being Christian enough, or Jews for not being Jewish enough, is beneath even mockery.
Oh yes, and to try and explain away 9:5 as applying only to polytheists is hollow, since it implies that Dr Peterson would be okay with Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Taoists and Animists being slaughtered in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.
Wellington and commonsense,
Thanks for the positive feedback. There's still plenty I don't know, and don't care to know, about Islam. My interests, like those of most readers here, focus on the problems in Islam and the threat it poses to non-Muslims.
Borg,
I've never been a Muslim. I've worked on some projects with ex-Muslims and have read a lot of material by ex-Muslims.
IP,
Yes, the Quran overall implies that the true Christians and Jews were the pure monotheists who submitted (i.e., were literally Muslims), and, later, that they accepted Muhammad and his revelations as the words of Allah. In short, they have to become Muslims, otherwise they are punished in this world and in hell.
Kinana - I find your postings very helpful. Clear and information-packed.
And I completely agree with your final point: the non-muslim world should focus a lot more effort on helping the bona fide apostates from Islam.
The thing is: they *know* exactly what woke them up and made them decide that Islam was a dead-end. They know which arguments, or which experiences, work; and which don't. So they're in a position to advise Infidels who are trying to deprogram Muslims.
So many of them - Ayaan, Ibn Warraq, Patrick Sookhdeo, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, the ex-Muslims on Fr Botros' team, Nonie Darwish, Magdi Cristiano Allam, and many, many others less well known - are hard at work raising the alarm (among the kafir whose ranks they have joined) while also trying their best to deprogram their former co-religionists. They have to be looked after and kept alive and safe so they can do their stuff.
The more Muslims we can successfully deprogram, the more happy people there will be in the world...and the safer the world will be for everyone, too.