Debate: Islam -- Threat or Not? Part 6

Impressive performance Robert. Brilliant in fact. I went back and watched all parts in the correct order. You had the Professor on toast. He didn't come across too convincingly, and begrudgingly conceded that you had many valid criticisms/observations. You know what you are talking about without having to look at printed material with your encyclopedic memory. I think that was acknowledged by the audience: they clapped for you but not for him.

I'm generally appalled at the level of ignorance about Islam. I'd be the same except for your efforts with publishing. I owe you a real debt of gratitude.

Keep up the good fight

With all the segments now posted, I'm going to settle in for marathon viewing of the debate.

I like the way Robert didn't let his last statement go unchallenged. Excellent series, Mr. Spencer.

Talk about a photo finish! Talk about a fantastic ending! In the last twenty seconds of the debate it looked for a moment as if Peterson might snatch some sort of partial victory from the jaws of a what was becoming a nasty defeat -- but then in the last five seconds Spencer easily popped Peterson right back into those jaws. Outstanding. Spencer was extremely effective throughout this debate.

The Professor is a nice man with lots of knowledge. But his knowledge has blank spots and holes in it. He has now found the man who can fill those blank spots...Spencer.

If the Professor wants to continue his Islamic education, he should study Spencer...

I'm going to keep pointing this out until people stop making the Simmering and dangerous but 'moderate' Muslim -- waiting for the right/wrong moment to go mujahideen -- argument which doesn't make sense.

If Robert Spencer's book is the only necessary ingredient for a so-called moderate Muslim to take up arms against innocent people then they're not moderate in our sense of the word.

Matt, read that ^ again until it sinks in.

You simply can't claim Muslims are moderate like any other religious groups and they posit, "unless you look at them funny". Nobody ever set off a radical group of Quakers, Mennonites, or Amish that I'm aware of. But somehow groups of Muslims will get angry and murder at the drop of a novel/book/cartoon ice cream cone/wounded Quran nearly anywhere. That's not a coincidence.

"He who insults a Prophet, kill him."

(Muhammed that is.)

I could not catch what Spencer said in the last few seconds, since Dr Peterson and the moderator were both speaking at the same time with him. Can someone please tell me what he said in those last seconds?

Thanks!

A couple of commentaries on the debate. First off, Robert, don't play or even look at your watch. Not good form, it can ruin your message before you even get to state it. But your ease in delivering an unprepared argument more than made up for that little faux pas. Just a little constructive criticism. I don't know why, but it just seems that whenever a speaker is playing with or looking at his/her watch it gives a sense of: "How much longer until I can leave?". But like I said, your strength in your argument more than made up.

And the professor. He needs to not put his chin in his hand and look disinterested or make it appear that what Robert is saying is garbage. As many posters commented, Robert grabbed the attention of many in the crowd by his ability to speak off the cuff, with conviction and confidence. That is just bad sportsmanship. Right up there with the Al Gore sigh. If anything you take a page from Ronald Reagan, use a killer catch phrase such as, "There you go again.", to show contempt. Over all you did a magnificent job Mr. Spencer, even if the moderator is a bit of a idiot.

War on Hate

Spencer was pointing out in response to Dr Peterson's point about the Wazirs in Egypt being Christian and the Wazirs in Spain being Jewish that there were riots in Granada in 1066 by Mohammedan citizens in protest against that.

On the speech itself, I thought it rather weak that Spencer agreed with Peterson on fanning the few embers of moderation and reform. If the forces of moderation and reform within the ummah are few and far between, and what's worse - actually intimidated by jihadis and therefore too afraid to speak out, what sort of a strategy is it in the first place to rely on them to reform Islam? What does it say about our chances of success to trust our lives to such cowards who have questionable chances of success of their own? Instead of agreeing with Peterson, why not just say that such debates belong more in the ummah than outside it, and what the Infidel world needs to do is assume that the dominant i.e. jihadi face of Islam actually does speak for Islam (the absence of a pope, or Caliph notwithstanding), and design counter policies accordingly.

Spencer's worst moment, in my view, was when he said that he wouldn't have studied Islam had it not been for all its good elements. That's destructive, since the 'good' elements of Islam are what lull unsuspecting Infidels into it (most of who would not take Spencer's approach towards studying it), and by the time they realize it, it's too late and the damage is done. In fact, given that they serve to attract people who'd otherwise not be interested or else totally repulsed by it, to Islam, I'd say that the 'good' parts of Islam are in that sense actually worse than its ugly parts.

And I question the very underpinning of Dr Peterson's apparent desire to avoid a war between Islam and the West, or Islam and Christianity, by resorting to generous interpretations of Islamic texts that are anything but mainstream. And why would we be so anxious to avoid such a conflict in the first place? On the Islamic side, you have a combination of virulent marauders who hate us and cowards who don't. How on earth does one think that that combination is not going to be at war with the rest of us, regardless of what we do (short of Islamizing)? The only thing that Dr Peterson's advocacy would result in would be a change in the behavior of Westerners: it's not going to affect how the Mohammedan side deals with it at all. What exactly is the wisdom then of generous interpretations of Islamic texts, which Mohammedans are not going to make, but Dr Peterson's readers might?

Robert, your remarks were so coherent and factual and I was furious when the moderator cut you off in the middle of that explanation in your last debate. Without being rude, I would say, sotto voce, that your nobility and articulate, knowledgeable approach stood out by comparison to er-uh the other debater..

I'd like to know what the audience was shouting at Peterson that made him make the "martyr" comment. I assume it was in support of what he was saying because of how he reacted to it.

I wish the Q&A had been longer while at the same time I was glad it wasn't. I am so sick and tired of seeing these types of events followed by questions from idiots who obviously don't give a crap what was said but only want to use the Q&A period to make their own speeches defending Islam and denouncing, in Mr. Spencer's case, facts that they cannot not in any way dispute. Too many morons out there. I don't know how Robert does it.

Dr. Petersen sounds so much like a Politician because after viewing all 6 videos he has talked many times but said absolutely NOTHING.

He also revises his comments to clearify them and then clarifies them again as if WE are the ones that don't get it.

Islam is starting to look like a "Candy-Coated" Mothball that pases all the visual tests for eating, and even if you take a nibble you are fooled by the layer of chocolate.

But , for those who blindly swallow these treats assuming they are harmless they soon find out that they can be Poisoned from witin and die a slow death.
Yes there are peaceful parts of islam, but that's because Jesus warned about the False-Prophet that would arrive in the future and claim to speak for God by repeating past Words from God....and then offer the ignorant masses Love and Unity with everylasting peace.
But this prophet would only bring Wars upon Wars, suffering and pain to all who follow him because THIS Prophet creates mans Religion based on Mans laws and knowledge.

Denial is a powerful weapon , and CAIR has used it well on the West to fool the masses and give out Chocolate coated Whahabi oppression as a ruse to poison the usefull idiots tricked into JIhad for Allah's cause.

Great job, Robert.

The over-all impression seemed to be that Robert's presentation was consistent and unyielding, whereas Peterson exhibited repeated ambiguity and uncertainty.

You HAVE to feel pretty good about this one, Robert. It may not have been a knock-out, but it was certainly a lopsided decision.

Robert, what was your answer to Dr Petersen's last comment? I didn't catch it.

ala-sux

Brilliant analogy there...Islam as candy-coated mothball.

Peterson comes across as reasonable in the later half (parts 4 through 6) of the session. I disagree with him on the apostasy-as-sedition issue, though. The line here, often used by apologists (though Peterson is not an Islam apologist), is that a viable interpretation is that Islam respects freedom of conscience in religion, and that the rulings of death for apostates (in the primary texts) only referred to those who had committed additional offenses such as treason in war. There are numerous problems with this view, but I will mention just a few of them.

Abu Bakr, the first right-guided Caliph, waged war against apostates simply on the grounds that they (allegedly) refused to pay zakat.

The apostasy penalty is comparable to the blasphemy penalty, the latter of which, according to the Hadith, includes death as a punishment. Here, there is no crime of sedition or treason as we would understand it in the West. A non-violent speech act (e.g., criticizing Muhammad or questioning the validity of Quranic verses) can suffice to warrant the death penalty. The penalty for apostasy is essentially the same as the classical penalty for blasphemy, i.e., putting someone to death for having made a public expression of rejecting the religion of Islam is, logically, a rejection of Muhammad and the Quran. Apostasy then, can be seen as essentially "blasphemy by someone who had previously accepted Islam."

Hence, Peterson's argument would have to deal with the blasphemy penalty. It would not be consistent to say that the apostasy penalty is not valid, without also making a convincing case that the blasphemy penalty is not valid.

The underlying problem is in Islamic theology. Apostasy, and disbelief generally, is punished maximally and permanently by eternal hell-fire and torture. It does not follow from this point alone that, therefore, there must be an earthly penalty. (The Quran and hadith do spell out the earthly penalties for disbelievers, though, and apostates are disbelievers). However, the hell-fire penalty for mere disbelief, which is asserted repeatedly in the Quran, does indicate that in the Islamic value system it is "good" and right" to give the maximum punishment for mere disbelief. The Quran, which describes the crime of murder, describes disbelief itself as the worst crime. The worst crime, logically, warrants the maximum penalty.

In the Islamic belief system, killing a Muslim does not endanger that Muslim's soul, but encouraging that Muslim to disbelieve, such as by apostatizing publicly or blaspheming, or by trying to convert that Muslim to a different religion or irreligion, endangers that Muslim's soul. If Muslims become disbelievers, and remain as such, they are worse than dead: They lose their souls and will be punished eternally in hell. That is worse than murdering a Muslim--which itself is punishable by death.

Hence to apostatize publicly, freely, without retribution in this world, would jeopardize the entire Islamic religion--as would blasphemy if it were allowed to go unpunished in this world. Muslims would be at risk of losing their souls, which is worse than physical death. This is one of the reasons, cited by Islamic scholars, in support of the earthly apostasy penalty. To allow the free spread of apostasy and blasphemy would be like allowing the spread of a disease that would destroy the souls of the Muslims or those potentially to be "saved" by submitting to Islam.

The Quran suggests that Muslims, in this world, have the task of policing matters of belief and disbelief, where these terms in Islam also imply obedience and disobedience. If they did not police the world, the world would be full of mischief/corruption (2:251; 22:39-45). Allah brought down "iron" (57:25) for Muslims to administer "justice". Again, the worst crime, according to the Quran, is disbelief in (and disobedience to) Islam. That is the worst corruption/mischief, particularly if one spreads it (e.g., public apostasy and blasphemy, or encouraging either), thereby endangering the souls of Muslims. The penalty for "spreading mischief/corruption" is up to and including death 5:32-33.

Kinana, you are waaaay too well-versed in Islamic dogma to write that Islam does not punish apostacy with murder. You wrote:

The underlying problem is in Islamic theology. Apostasy, and disbelief generally, is punished maximally and permanently by eternal hell-fire and torture. It does not follow from this point alone that, therefore, there must be an earthly penalty.

It does follow from "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (Bukhari 6922) that there must be an earthly penlty.

To quote Walid Shoebat, "what part of kill do you not understand?"

Then you wrote:

To allow the free spread of apostasy and blasphemy would be like allowing the spread of a disease that would destroy the souls of the Muslims or those potentially to be "saved" by submitting to Islam.

Sure, that's what they say. They're great at coming up with half-assed, logically false excuses for their insane laws and horrible behavior. But thinking people realize that this is not the case. It's like Hugh says about da'wa. It's never about saving a soul. It's about recruiting for their army. Having thinking human beings around threatens the Islamic army. No Muslim gives a rat's ass about anyone, in life or in death. They necessarily can't because their worldview revolves around narcissism. It's about Islam, empire, not people, not souls. That's why dhimmitude exists: because it feeds the empire monetarily. They don't care about the dhimmis' souls. They want their money in order to expand their empire. All the crazy rituals, the prayer, the fasting, etc. is practiced in order to numb the mind because rational thought kills Islam. It has nothing to do with piety. If it did it would be moral, not immoral and amoral.

Peterson is not only an Islamic apologist, but an Islamic whore.

jdamn,

"Kinana, you are waaaay too well-versed in Islamic dogma to write that Islam does not punish apostacy with murder."

You are misreading what I wrote. I didn't write that Islam does not punish apostasy with murder. I described how Islamic theology could be (and is) used to justify the death penalty for apostasy.

Peterson's point about the hadith ruling on apostasy is that it can be read as a death penalty for treason or sedition. (I don't agree with that reading, but that's essentially what he said about it). Your citing of that hadith does not really address Peterson's point. To refute him, you'd have to provide some additional contextual material that shows that apostates were killed for mere public apostasy, or that apostates that were killed were not guilty of anything as serious as sedition or treason (in the western senses of those terms), or there is something peculiar about the Islamic versions of "sedition" or "treason," and so on.

I don't think there is any need to launch an ad hominem attack on Peterson. A reasonable, well-educated person can happen to be wrong about a particular issue. If you want to refute him, refute him and back up what you say by citing sources.