Peter Kreeft and Robert Spencer Engage in Lively Debate on Islam

Here is the press release from Thomas More College about my debate last Thursday with Peter Kreeft. I am reposting the video also, as I believe it sheds light on numerous controversies that face the Western world today.

On Nov. 4, 2010, Thomas More College hosted two of the leading writers on religion in the English-speaking world: Philosopher and apologist Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, and internationally-known scholar and critic of Islam Robert Spencer, director of Jihadwatch. These two eminent thinkers came to the school's New Hampshire campus on a rainy Thursday night and spoke to a crowd of more than 100 visitors , along with the whole of Thomas More College's student body, crammed into the Newman Humanities room and spilling out into the hallways, as cameras rolled. The debate was chaired by Thomas More College's Writer-in-Residence Dr. John Zmirak, author of The Bad Catholic's Guide to the Seven Deadly Sins (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2010). Both Spencer and Kreeft contributed essays to Disorientation: How to Go To College Without Losing Your Mind (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2010), which Zmirak edited. Spencer's essay criticized the anti-Western ideology of Multiculturalism, and Kreeft's the heresy of Progressivism, or "chronological snobbery."

Kreeft is author of more than 45 books about faith and philosophy, including such classics as Making Sense Out of Suffering and The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, and the provocative Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War. Spencer, a former philosophy student of Kreeft's, has written ten books, including New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades); he also edits the daily news site Jihadwatch, which tracks jihad-related violence and activism around the world, and consults regularly for the FBI and other national security agencies. While Kreeft is widely detested by dissenting Catholics and atheists for his agility at besting them in debates, Spencer is on a list of four Americans targeted by Al-Qaeda for assassination.

The authors came at the invitation of Thomas More College's Edmund Campion Debate Society, which sponsors regular student debates on philosophical and theological issues--most recently the morality of the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the "just war" credentials of the American Revolution.

On Nov. 4 the topic was "Is the Only Good Muslim a Bad Muslim?" Mr. Spencer came to argue that Islam as codified in the Qur'an and explicated by all authoritative sources aspires to subjugate and oppress "unbelievers" and impose sharia law throughout the world; because sharia law is inimical to religious freedom and to human dignity, we as Catholics should hope that Muslims are not devout enough to advocate it, (as their own faith says they must) by either warlike or peaceful means.

Dr. Kreeft came to offer his own perspective on the religion of Islam. In his latest book, Between Allah and Jesus (Nottingham, England: IVP Books, 2010), Prof. Kreeft uses the figure of 'Isa, a devout Muslim studying at Boston College, to highlight the commonalities Kreeft sees between Islamic and Catholic piety, and point up all that we can learn from truly devout adherents of Islam--set in stark contrast to the post-modern, dissenting Catholicism widely accepted at secularized Catholic colleges. Through 'Isa (whose name is the Arabic form of Jesus, accepted by Muslims as merely a prophet), Kreeft argues that terrorism, military jihad, and the aspiration to subjugate "unbelievers" such as Jews and Christians, are not necessarily germane to the religious lives of Muslims. Isa insists that such manifestations of Islam are perversions of its true spirit, as witch-burnings, inquisitions, and religious wars were distortions of Christian faith.

Spencer agreed with Kreeft that since Islam is the faith of more than a billion people, he would also like to find a version of that religion which renounces religious oppression, the suppression and mistreatment of women, and the use of violence. "Having studied the source materials--the Qur'an, the authentic Hadiths accepted by all Muslims, and the teachings of the most authoritative scholars across the Islamic world, I regret that I must say: Such an Islam does not exist. I wish it did. So does Dr. Kreeft. But we must not settle for wishful thinking. There are many peaceful Muslims who do not engage in violent jihad and who support religious freedom, but in doing so they are acting like Catholics who practice birth control or support legal abortion. They are defying their religion, because they do not have the authority to reform it," Spencer said.

Spencer went on to cite a number of Qur'anic injunctions to conquer, convert, or subjugate Jews and Christians--and noted that because these verses of the Qur'an were spoken by Muhammad later in his life, orthodox Muslims consider them more normative than his earlier calls for religious toleration. "Essentially, when Muhammad was weak and unpopular, he asked members of other faiths to live and let live. Once he controlled the city of Medina and led an army, he received new revelations that called for jihad and religious persecution. Islamic scholars believe that the later revelations abrogated (or overruled) the earlier ones. But when they are in a position of weakness--as they are today in America--Muslims like to cite the peaceful verses. Sad to say, they are merely being strategic. When they gain a position of power, they will always change their tune. Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, is already planning--once it defeats the Israelis--to collect the Islamic tax (or jizya) from that area's remaining Christians."

Kreeft reiterated his book's focus on the theological essence of Islam, which is a radical submission (Arabic: islam) to the will of God, a stark theocentrism that subjugates all merely human concerns to the demands of obedience to the creator. That willingness to serve (Latin: serviam) is for Kreeft almost identical to the humility and obedience displayed by Christian saints, and ought to serve as a lesson to contemporary Catholics--who all too often treat the demands made by their own faith as mere suggestions, to be taken or rejected by the self-directed (and often self-serving) individual conscience. Kreeft spoke eloquently of the "fear of God" as an indispensable starting point in the life of faith. "As Chesterton wrote, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. For Christians, unlike Muslims, it is not the end. But if we do not have it at the beginning, we will treat God's law with contempt, as so many of us nowadays do."

Kreeft pointed to higher birthrates among contemporary Muslims, and their rejection of abortion and pornography, as evidence of their willingness to "postpone gratification, and pay forward the gift of life to new generations--something far too few Christians are doing in our time. That's another lesson we can learn from Muslims." Kreeft argued that "good Muslims" can prick our conscience on such issues, and serve sometimes as our allies in international culture wars--as Islamic countries have done in past years at the United Nations, when their votes helped the Holy See and a few Catholic nations such as the Philippines defeat anti-life population control programs supported by formerly Christian countries throughout Europe.

Spencer agreed that Catholics and Muslims can work together, but insisted that we act "with open eyes," fully informed about the intrinsic intolerance of orthodox Islam. "Also, we have to be aware of the full range of Islamic beliefs and practices. Most schools of Islamic thought accept artificial birth control. And the Islamic practice of divorce is something even secular Westerners find appalling: A Muslim man can divorce his wife simply by telling her verbally. Then she must leave his home, with no rights to alimony or custody of children. Also, he can marry up to four women at a time, provided he treats them all 'equally.' Because the prophet Muhammad is seen as the perfect model of conduct, a Muslim man can marry a girl as young as 9 years old--since that's what Muhammad did. That is why Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini lowered the legal age of consent for girls to 9 years. He was taking Muhammad's example as normative. With sexual ethics like these, are Muslims really our natural allies? On a few issues, maybe."

Kreeft did not dispute Spencer's assertions about Islam, but insisted that we as Catholics should not prefer the secularism of modern Europe to the theocentrism of Muslims. "Our real enemies, as Christians, are demons. It's all too easy, as we have done in past centuries, to think that Muslims or Communists are the problem, and if we can only defeat and subjugate them the Church will triumph. I would say that today the spirit of the secular Enlightenment--which rejects God altogether, and encourages us to worship ourselves--is far more dangerous to our souls than a world religion that is devoted to worshiping the same God as Christians and Jews, albeit in a partial, somewhat primitive and distorted manner."

Responding to a question from Spencer, Kreeft expanded on what he wrote in Between Allah and Jesus about the divine revelation claimed by Mohammed: "Private revelations have happened all through Christian history, and the devil loves to get in there and distort the message, to filter it through human fallenness and fill it with flaws. Perhaps that is what happened--that God really did have a message He intended Muhammad to transmit to the Arabs, and a lot it got through, but it was admixed with other things, that were purely human and even sinful. I don't claim to know. But large elements of Islam are identical with Judaism and Christianity--because that's where Mohammad got them. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, all three of us worship the same God." Spencer countered that the many distortions of the divine and natural law unique to Islam made its common origin with Judaism and Christianity essentially irrelevant.

A lively question period followed, in which Thomas More students and guests of the college challenged each author on his assertions, and expressed admiration for their books. In response to one question, about Pope Benedict's Regensburg Address, Kreeft pointed to the pope's explicit comparison of Islamic theology and that of Calvinism--the faith in which Kreeft was reared. "They both, in the end, reject the use of reason in trying to understand God. In the West, this led to modern secularism, as Pope Benedict pointed out. Among Muslims, it led to the death of philosophy. In a profound sense, Islam and the secular West are mirror images of each other." After the debate, both authors joined students and guests for a reception in the Helm Seminar room of the College.

Named for the great Jesuit martyr whose forensic skills flummoxed the most articulate Anglican spokesmen in his day, the Campion Society sponsors student debates in the Oxford format--extemporaneous, without notes or time limits, conducted in the style of the British parliament. Created to help students gain a deeper appreciation of Rhetoric as a liberal art, the Campion debates supplement Thomas More College's traditional core curriculum, which extends through all four years, covers the Great Books of the Western world, and includes extensive training in Catholic philosophy and theology. More student debates will be held throughout the 2010-11 academic year, also chaired by Dr. Zmirak.

| 63 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

63 Comments

| Leave a comment

Spencer went on to cite a number of Qur'anic injunctions to conquer, convert, or subjugate Jews and Christians--and noted that because these verses of the Qur'an were spoken by Muhammad later in his life, orthodox Muslims consider them more normative than his earlier calls for religious toleration. "Essentially, when Muhammad was weak and unpopular, he asked members of other faiths to live and let live. Once he controlled the city of Medina and led an army, he received new revelations that called for jihad and religious persecution. Islamic scholars believe that the later revelations abrogated (or overruled) the earlier ones. But when they are in a position of weakness--as they are today in America--Muslims like to cite the peaceful verses. Sad to say, they are merely being strategic. When they gain a position of power, they will always change their tune."

++++++++++

Yes, Prof. Kreeft is an affable enough fellow, showing himself to be a willing listener and learner, but a self-deluding patsy nonetheless. If his interest in Islam is genuine, and if he is a reader of these comments, perhaps he would be willing to consider passing this new knowledge onto his students.

HOW MUSLIMS TAKE OVER.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.

In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a mask for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their "religious" privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

In the USA this inordinate influence is being experienced because the leftists & MSM cabal which want to see the USA, based as it is on Judeo-Christian principles, fail by any means necessary.

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim

Kreeft: "a radical submission (Arabic: islam) to the will of God, a stark theocentrism that subjugates all merely human concerns to the demands of obedience to the creator."

The devil is in the details, when one considers the potential outcomes of a "radical submission" to what one believes to be the will of one's deity:

1. What does your deity want of you? What is the nature of the relationship with him that he made you for?

2. How does your deity propose you propagate his message? What if people refuse that message? How would he like you to respond?

3. What does your deity's idea of justice look like? (Amputations? Stonings? Death for apostasy?)

4. Continued from Item 3: How does your deity propose you deal with unbelievers?

5. Whom did your deity provide as a leader, founder, and primary source for the authentic practice of your religion? How did that person act?

Did he kill? Did he incite others to kill? Did he lead battles? Did he keep the commandments he propagated or change some to suit his evolving needs for marriage, etc.?

You can see where I'm going with this. Whether your "radical submission" is a force for good depends on the nature of the commands to which you have submitted.

Kreeft said: "Our real enemies, as Christians, are demons."

Really??

Did he manage to produce evidence of "demons"?

And this man is allowed to teach young people??

We're screwed if he is an example of people mentoring the youth of today.

Truly this man Kreeft frightens me and his following statements did nothing to alleviate my fears. He is an extremist - he will have any religion over secularism, even if that religion is an evil totalitarian ideology such as islam!

He also makes it clear that he doesn't understand the problem - he think that blame is being or has been laid at the feet of "communists and muslims", when it was laid at the feet of Communism and Islam.
The ideology, not the people Peter.

"As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, all three of us worship the same God." Does the Catholic catechism really teach that Muslims and Christians worship the same god ? That seems a bold and incorrect assertion about islam (see Mark Durie's writings), although it is a standard islamic ambit claim.

Robert is quoted as saying "Such an Islam does not exist". I would express this as "Such an Islam exists only as a non-orthodox folk-islam. It is destabilised whenever people look closely at the Qur'an or authoritative Islamic teaching, or when an inspiring preacher of orthodox Islam arrives." What do people think of this formulation?

Dr. Kreeft's elevation of "fear of God" shows a focus on subjugation to law that misses the point of God's grace in Christ which should drive out fear and motivate Christians from gratitude and in freedom. It shows the contrast between reformed Christian faith and Roman Catholic faith.

Article re Kreeft's Roman position: "But large elements of Islam are identical with Judaism and Christianity--because that's where Mohammad got them. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, all three of us worship the same God."

The Catechism is just wrong here if it really means that.

The demon "Jibril" (perhaps Satan itself) impersonating the biblical angel Gabriel was the only source of preternatural revelation for Muhammad, who, unlike true biblical prophets, did not receive communications directly from God but indirectly via (fallen) angel "Jibril."

Jibril is a demon because it is a lying spirit; it contradicts both the Old Testament and New Testament messages delivered by the true angel Gabriel, whom it is impersonating.

Therefore, it is not the true Gabriel but a liar and therefore fallen and therefore a demon.

Jibril contradicts Gabriel as seen in Dan 9:24-26. Muslims deny that Jesus was the King/Prince, which is the meaning of the anointed Messiah, a term Muslims empty of royal significance and treat just as a simple name, "Masih." They deny the "atonement" Gabriel prophesies and that the Messiah was crucified, or "cut off." This is not the same angel in both Daniel and in the Qur'an.

Likewise, Jibril lies in contradicting Gabriel in Luke 1:26-33, where the true angel Gabriel reveals Jesus is not only the everlasting ruling Davidic king denied by Muslims (as noted above) but also "the Son of the Most High," a revelation which pseudo-Jibril is careful to repeatedly countermand in most forceful terms and make that denial central to Islam.

Now, given that these central truths such as the Sonship of God are a foundational essential element of Trinitarian Christian theology proper, apostasy from such basics indicate a different god is being worshipped, one that lies about its identity and only impersonates the one true God.

So, although God can work with individual Muslim people who dwell in spiritual bondage and deliver them, let us stop rewarding the Islamic "theology" hiding a subversive deceiver who sneaks in unawares and corrupts with snakish slyness.

Kreeft deflects opposition to Islamic servants of Jibril's revelation by saying that our "real enemies are demons." Well, I say let's oppose the demon Jibril who teaches and empowers good Muslims to follow Muhammad's example of hellish imperialism. That is opposing demons and their works in the world.

In one way, I agree with Kreeft that our enemies are demons rather than Muslims, for I accept that there is an unseen spiritual war, and that the weapons of our warfare are spiritual rather than carnal (speaking as a non-RC Christian).

But is Islam our ally against the science- and state-cults of the post-Christian West? It seems to me that the worshipers of "Nature" and Moloch are allied with Islam against Christians far too often.

Thank you, Robert. It must have been difficult for you to defeat your former professor, but the Truth compelled you. I am grateful for your efforts and pray for your truth telling.

Thank you, Robert. My parents attended the event. They live in the area and I recommended the evening to them, though I now live 3000 miles away! They are Catholic and in their 80's. I knew they would appreciate the "civilized" and friendly tone of the discussion. They sat in the back, and left before Q&A (because it was almost 10 PM by then) but they enjoyed your presentation very much. They described it as "more useful" than Kreeft's presentation.

Its a little off topic but after exploring this site for a while (I was here for two months), I found a strange pro Muslim comenter named "Blootstellen.wordpress.com".
While surly not an extreme Muslim he uses the typical pro-Islam Relativism.

While he claims to be a Christian, I found some of his quotes surprising: "You have quickly skimmed over Christianity probably out of fear more than anything else. Jesus’ message was clear enough and to be clear on his passing, from Paul onwards the road returned to the usual conquer and use any excuse possible and God as well as Jesus’ name was on the tip of the sword." WOW if this one is not typical Muslim (especialy the condemnation of Paul) I dont know what is, and what does he mean with "Jesus’ message was clear enough"?

"Just one more small comment. I had a very, very long discussion with an Imam here who lives near Rotterdam – Indonesian born, lived in The Netherlands since 1949. He said that Muslims consider three prophets special amongst others. Adam, Jesus and Mohammed. Mohammed obvously because they believe he is the last prophet and that the Koran is sacred. But they consider Adam and Jesus very special because both came from the “sand” and returned to the “sand” , meaning that they were not born but created and taken back. He finds it amazing that Copts and Orthodox Christians can have a logical conversation with Muslims based on what they share, in the divinity of Jesus and his message but that the Western Churches and the sects that sprang from it cannot. That they have turned worshiping God into worshiping Jesus. He said that Mohammed made it very clear, you only worshiip God and you venerate the Prophets. They certainly do not believe that Jesus is the son of God and for some reason the Western Church followers find that so insulting that they go out of their way to hate Islam and demonize it."

He may not be a Muslim (for this he lacks any serious knouloge of islamic theology), but he is surly a person who has integrated basic parts of islamic theology into his own beliefs and is surly no Christion anymore (on the other hand when he says that: "The agenda of Islam is the same as that of Judaism and Christianity – totally – to bring the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and both have that Utopian goal in their scriptures", he shows a great lack of understanding for Christianity). It is strange how some people have mixed up things so much that they dont see any diffrences between diffrent beliefs.
Can anyone here say who this guy is?

As someone theologically trained in a mainline/liberal tradition, I am embarrassed that Peter Kreeft is considered someone who is wise. I am not surprised since I've run across his type many times.

Notice how Robert Spencer deals with facts and realities. Kreeft deals with anecdotes filtered through his own "let's just share and all be better for it." His chuckling while doing this made me livid, since Christians who are sharing the gospel right now are being murdered, abused, raped, and ethnically cleansed throughout the Islamic world.

It is outrageous that his buffoonishly abstract ideas of "getting some planes" and "sharing" are not mocked by anyone who considers the realities of Christian/Islamic dialogue.

I would go even further and accuse Mr. Keefer of having future blood on his hands through the sloth of not being willing to engage the true reality of Islamic ideas. It was obvious he knew little regarding the problematic nature of Islam. This sloth, combined with an airy fairy approach to Islamic brutality is lulling the West into allowing Islam to entrench itself in the West. He is akin to those who minimized the threat of Nazism in the 30's by saying, "Oh, I've talked with Hilter and he's a nice chap."

Intellectual sloth is a serious sin for teachers in the Church.

It was actually painful to see Professor Kreeft blunder through the dialogue, making so many errors in logic and contradicting himself in so many ways.

Mr. Kreeft made many historical errors; for instance, when he spoke of the Sufis, he was apparently unaware that Sufism has been behind some of Islam's bloodiest conquests and persecutions of non-believers. There is even thought that Bin Laden has been influenced ty that mystical school.
So much for the "peaceful Sufis" and what they have to offer.

It might be true that the Enlightenment's loosening led to the abominations of Bolshevism and Fascism, but who knows. Such bloody abuses also occured under regimes which professed a theistic concept.

In the end, I can seriousely state that not once has an atheist, agnostic, or freethinker threatened me. Most atheists I know are incredibly moral and ethical people. Some Muslims may also be incredibly ethical people. BUT, I can not state that I am not threatened by those who take Islam's teachings seriousely.

At least when Christians murdered and persecuted Jews and others they did so AGAINST the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth! Muslims, however, are following their "prophets" teachings when they oppress others.

Now. of which group's ideology and tradition would you justly be more fearful?

James Martel,

"Sloth"? Kreeft? Surely not. You can't reasonably accuse Kreeft, who has written forty-five books, of being intellectually slothful. Unless perhaps you've read some of those books and consider them trash.

You might successfully argue that on the subject of Islam he has not been thorough. I think that was demonstrated by the fact that, while he could speak in a fascinating way, his convictions about Islam seemed not very strongly held, and he seemed to keep yielding to Robert Spencer's very different outlook. But Islam is not Kreeft's subject, and why should we hold it against him that he is not thorough on every subject?

One could also argue that he is a bit irresponsible on the subject of Islam, insofar as he wrote a book about it that doesn't seem to be thoroughly grounded in knowledge of the Islamic texts and history. He admitted at the start of the debate, that Spencer knows a great deal more about Islam.

I think many of us are being too hard on Kreeft. He is very friendly to what Robert Spencer is saying, and even seems at the very end to yield the main point in contention during the debate. Kreeft is a very imaginative, creative, thoughtful, and benign man, whatever his imperfections. Or so I think, having watched him and having read one of his books (his fictional after death dialog between C.S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley, and John F. Kennedy, who all died on the same day).

I ahvnt lisened to this debate, but from what I read Dr.Kreeft had to read a little less secondary literature and a little more primary sources before writing his book.

"Isa insists that such manifestations of Islam are perversions of its true spirit"

Sorry but Islam dosnt have a "spirit", its all about the "letter"

"Kreeft pointed to higher birthrates among contemporary Muslims, and their rejection of abortion and pornography, as evidence of their willingness to "postpone gratification, and pay forward the gift of life to new generations--something far too few Christians are doing in our time."

I wonder if he knows about the Islamic view of paradise?
A Muslim who "postpones gratification", is like a modern workoholic who concentrates compleetly on making a career only to then enjoy all kind of "delights", bouth "postpones gratification", but for reasons that are to admire, I dont think so. And dont forget that a robber who besieges a city to plunder it and to rape its woman often too endures great hardships and "postpones gratification", but what are his goals. I think for a Christian the intention and the aim is the center, while for the Muslim its the concrete action.

"Also, he can marry up to four women at a time, provided he treats them all 'equally"

Which Muhammad didnt, he favored Aisha and one of his wifes who was getting old was forced to forfit her "night" with Muhammad just to not get divorced (they were "mothers of believers" and so couldnt be remarried), and of course Aisha got the "night". Mr. Spencer forgets to add Sex with slave-girls (who could be "lent" to others according to the Koran, if they agreed (and if they didnt Allah was "forgiving, Mercifull")) the rape of feamale captives and (now for Shias only) MUTTA! (Which is a holy act and has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROSTITUTION).

"Private revelations have happened all through Christian history, and the devil loves to get in there and distort the message, to filter it through human fallenness and fill it with flaws. Perhaps that is what happened--that God really did have a message He intended Muhammad to transmit to the Arabs, and a lot it got through, but it was admixed with other things, that were purely human and even sinful."

WOW!!!!

I know that extreme specialisation is popular now, but maybe Dr.Kreeft should know at least a little bit about the historical context of 7th century Arabia. If Muhammad was born in 7th century Australia or 7th cenury Brazilia, I would have understood such logic, but MUHAMMAD LIVED RIGHT NEAR THE HEART OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD!!!!
Sorry but Christianity was allready spreading into Arabia and after the Roman victory against Persia, Christian dominance in the whole middle east was ensured. Muhammad and his goons destroyed the heart of Christianity but Dr.Kreeft DARES to say that GOD INSPIRED MUHAMMAD???? Did God inspire him to attack the Christian World????


I listened to this debate three times while I was working today. I wish I could speak and reason like that. It's very comforting to know Robert and to believe the same as he does. I have a feeling Dr. Kreeft will review this debate over and over again in his mind and eventually come to Robert's conclusions.

I did think it was rather odd that Dr. Kreeft said he hadn't really studied Islam and then went ahead and wrote a book about it anyway.

I'm sorry, but I had to stop right when Dr. Kreeft began. If he admits that Robert knows much more about Islam than he does, and that Islam is a "minor interest" of his, then why did he agree to this debate?

I did read the summary, so it seems he ascribes to the "it's the same god, only with a different name" view. I always wonder where people get that idea from. All you have to do is read the Bible and read the Koran and you can clearly see that these two gods - whether you even believe they are real or not - are very different in personality, qualities and behavior.

Dr. Kreeft's idea of looking to muslim students for spiritual role modeling and piety during a time when the students around him display general discontent with their Catholic roots was just too much horse manure. I listened slackjawed as he suggested the same God for Islam, Jews and Christians. The audience atmosphere of that debate was charged, and I think the group's general respect for Kreeft and overall polite nature stopped the discussion from rejecting Islam as an Abrahamic faith - which this group should have done. It was a bit cowardly that they didn't.

Thank you Mr. Spencer. I understand your adversary wasn't a true adversary and so you rightly kept the heavy loads in the cabinet.

Excellent FScarn. Thank you for the post.

Just one point Thomas More was a murderer. For English protestants using his name for a college is VERY offensive.
He killed 4 people because they were not Catholics.

@Unknown998, in answer to your question about Blootstellen, I did express my little theories back on those threads. .the character came to my attention initially over at the Battle for Britain site http://focusuk.wordpress.com and intrigued me even more than he irritated me. . He posted there under the name Donny van den Helm, abbreviated to DvdH. .curious about his claims to have previously been in the council of Rotterdam, I ran a few searches and found, amongst other things, that he had posted anti-Wilders stuff at the ?Pakistan-based site 'New Dawn'. .and introduced himself on a dating site as having previously worked for ?Thompson CMI, an international defence contractor. .my curiousity spiked, went on the search back to Rotterdam to find that that company had been awarded a Golden industry-achievement bong by none other than Ahmed Aboutaleb, the Muslim mayor who, as everyone and his son knows, holds dual Moroccan/Dutch citizenship. . Aboutaleb's father was/?is an Iman in Morocco. .anyway, to cut a long story short, I'm not an investagative journalist and, though harbouring certain conclusions, gave up the chase as I needed to make a living. . I had hoped some better equipped than I might pick up the trail from the snippets I'd evinced. .maybe that person is you Unkown998. .as long as you're not Blootstellen pulling a double-bluff:-S

. .and marylouise, I'll second your reply to olorin . .

Any proof of that? By your reckoning I wonder how many Catholics Good Queen Bess murdered.

Kreeft quoting the Catechism seems to be Christianizing Islam believing that in essence it differs little from Christianity; that pious Christians and Moslems have more to unite than to divide them. If only it were true.

One further comment: Kreeft mentions Sufis as superb examples of pious, non-violent (Christian-like) Moslems as if Sufism were incompatible with aggression and war. Perhaps the most revered Sufi in Islamic history, the jurist, philosopher (or anti-philosopher) al Ghazali was a Moslem supremacist who believed that Islam's divine mission, as revealed by Allah to Mohammad, was the subjugation of humanity by persuasion or force.

@Unknown998, the defence contractor I mentioned in my reply to you was infact Thales Group, not Thompson CFI who are apparently plumbers or the suchlike. .

repost from earlier topic:


There was one thing near the end of the uneven exchange (the vast knowledge of Robert Spencer - answered by a manifest lack thereof, and ungracefully covered by jolliness on the part of Mr. Kreeft) that struck me.

Both seemed to agree that a lot of problems with Islam would subside if only the US government would enforce "equality of all before the law".
Perhaps in dealing with ordinary thugs this might hold, but isn't the threat Islam poses more than a bit out of the ordinary, to say the least?

My expectation would be that the fight forced upon us will rapidly take on such a vicious form, that it would ultimately turn Western countries into gruesome police states in order to supress it when it's too late.
To think that today no special action is called for (while it is still possible), to merely impose the rule of law more thoroughly and consistently, i.m.h.o. is inviting the future police state scenario. And that is exactly what the progressive elites want.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.


I was surprised by Kreeft's naivety about Islam and porn (not to mention, his apparent unawareness of the polymorphous perversity that flourishes - and has always flourished - behind the closed doors and curtains of the Ummah).

I have not done the relevant research myself, but other posters here have occasionally mentioned the fact that certain Muslim countries top the list as containing the largest number of persons who go looking for the worst kinds of porn online.

And there's this article:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=EFC10CD9-F671-40D1-AF69-0249117FCEC3
The Depraved World of Jihadi Child Porn
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 24, 2008

Excerpt:

"Besides their well-known penchant for anti-Semitism, misogyny and nihilistic violence, Muslim extremists are also gaining a disturbing reputation among British security agencies as collectors of child pornography.

"According to a report on The Times website last week, police in Great Britain are discovering that their investigations into Muslim terrorism are leading them into the depraved world of child sexual exploitation.

"The reverse is also occurring with child protection officers encountering people who are “preparing to carry out terrorist acts.”

"At one time, the link between the two deviant behaviours was considered so strong that security officials considered establishing an anti-terrorism project involving child welfare experts,

"but never followed through because Scotland Yard’s hands were too full with other terrorist investigations."...

And Sufi 'mysticism' has traditionally involved the practice of paederasty.

Here's an interesting article by 'Spengler' on the subject, that might make Kreeft think twice about rhapsodising over Sufis.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH12Ak03.html

"Sufism, sodomy and Satan"

Excerpt:

"In contrast to the Judeo-Christian West, where marriage has been a metaphor for God’s love since the Biblical Song of Songs, homosexual pederasty was normative for the Sufi philosopher-poets of Islam’s golden age in Central Asia.

"For Christians, the earthly adumbration of God’s love was nuptial,

"but [it was] pederastic in Muslim Persia.

"The classic Persian poets, including Hafez and Rumi, pined for beardless boys while their European contemporaries wrote sonnets to women...

"In its ascendancy, Sufism made a definitive spiritual experience out of a practice considered criminally aberrant in the West."

I've said it before and now again - The Bible teaches that Abraham was instructed by GOD to go to Mt. Moria to offer his son Isaac - Islam teaches it was Ismael; someone has it WRONG, you know - and I just happen to know who. So please Kreeft, WAKE UP! What did you mean when you stated in one of your books, that both Mohammad and Buhda are now in heaven worshiping Mary - to my mind, Blasphemy of the worst kind; I mean should Mohammad not still be in purgatory for all his monstrous deeds.

@Unknown998, my faulty memory wasn't quite as imperfect as I'd first feared. . Thales Group was Thomson CSF up until 2000. .

Well interesting, but I am a Russian hiostory-student (and as such appealed by Blootstellens post about "Islamic civilisation". I actualy wanted to go over to his Blog to tell him some things from "mainstreem" historians, especialy numbers grom Maddison and others that show that "glorious Islamic Spain" never reeched Roman Spains GDP per capita or population density (Even less did other lands, even at the hight of the Khalifat, after wich a decline followed that lasted right into the 19th century, and to ask him were in the early middle ages in Europe poeople were "burned" for "thinking" or asking about Aristotel or Plato. I know of Muslim sientists who were burned but Christians? Who? Jordano Bruno...a Sientist??? Read his works!!!
But I didnt want to give my E-Mail adress to him so I didnt.

In his fight against "radicalism" he seems to follow a "radical" ideology himself, a ideology that states that if you dare to believe that diffrent cultures have diffrent standarts of morale and not basicly the same, you are a "radical".


"I had hoped some better equipped than I might pick up the trail from the snippets I'd evinced. .maybe that person is you Unkown998."

Me? No I am clearly to badly prepared for this and I dont want to expose me to much to his foolishness.

But at the first glance Ahmed Aboutaleb, seems to be quiet secularized.... and this "Blootstellens" even oposes CAIR, and believes in Israels right to exist so its a strange Islamophile (but on the other hand I am following modern politics only 2 months now, so what do I know?.) He also says that: "David Horowitz Freedom Center, which with an annual budget of around 5 million dollars is an important financier of outlets such as Jihad Watch and Islam critic Robert Spencer." How much truth is that JihadWatch is so strongly financed?

May I ask you to what conclusions you did come?

"Our real enemies, as Christians, are demons.

You are more likely to see a terrorist, than a demon...
According to 'some people', some demons like to foul up humans...Some of them are capable of direct human interaction with some people, exorcists have devised ways to banish them from possessed people...According to those who 'know', demons always lie and misrepresent themselves...The trained magician knows this, and will 'test' the 'disembodied entity', that he has conjured up, either in the astral, or in the triangle of manifestation...Not all demons are the same, like the hierarchy of Angels and spirits, there is a lowerarchy of demons...Some demons are in it for the laughs and others are destroyers...The lower worlds are like a ten story hotel, called Qlipoth in Cabala, where Satan and Moloch control the penthouse, their lieutenants the ninth floor, and below that, floors inhabited by demons of different abilities and complexities...
If Mahound was not making it up, if he really was visited by Gabriel(?) on numerous occasions, if he really was pressed three times by a demon who ordered him to 'read', he obviously did not know how to protect himself, and was wide open to possession by a malevolent demon...This is why the wise on these subjects advice, 'don't dabble in the occult'...
The key word is 'dabble'...Mahound dabbled and got possessed by a malevolent demon...
This is not likely to happen to your average Christian, who's devotion to Jesus is a natural shield against possession by negative spirits or demons...This is one reason for the Christian focus on love...The more love you have in your heart, the less likely you will become demon possessed...Demons are more dangerous to Mahoundians than Christians because Islam has almost no focus on love at all, and are then prime targets for wandering demons...Or at least, that's what my mother told me...

Hey Sagunto,

Nice to see you here again.

I am not sure I fully understand your comment. It seems to me that you are saying that both debaters imply that some (moslems?) are not enjoying “equality before the law”. If so, in which sense? Is the law applied to them stricter, or more indulgent than when applied to others?

You proceed mentioning inevitability of the “fight forced upon us”. Would that fight be a result of the failure of the US Government’s to enforce “equality of all before the law”? How would it cause emergence of police state? Trough a military overtake?
Finally what are the “special actions” (vis a vis local moslems?) that need to be used in order to prevent the development you envision?

I never have problems understanding your well structured arguments, but I admit I have problem to clearly understand the last one.

Best regards, my friend

Thomas

Interesting that Kreeft considers Atheists to be his enemies..pretty sad that,as many of us are fighting against Moslem influences alongside our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters..

@Unknown998, this thread deals with the debate in question, and it would be out-of-place for me to continue discussing your point, which, though it started a little off-topic, is beginning to turn into a full-scale diversion. .maybe you revive the subject-matter of your line of inquiry at another time when the opportunity presents itself. .

I have read a large amount of material on this site, but this is the first time I've seen anything about Robert being on an Al Qaeda hit list. If that is true, then I sincerely hope that Robert doesn't take any short-cuts with his personal security. One lapse and some lone wolf wanna-be may use it as his opportunity to finally get laid (heavenly virgins and all that).

What a blow to the world it would be to lose an uncorruptible yet perspicacious mind, and at the same time one of the world's most effective defenders against Islamic theocracy.

Thanks, DDA! In the back of my mind, I recalled reading that article but couldn't remember where I read it.

The Islamic practice of "muta" or temporary marriage is another example of the infamous Islamic custom of the pot calling the kettle black.

Hi Thomas,

Sorry for "leaving unobscured the vast darkness of the subject" ;-)

Both men are adressing a question about the desired "public policy" (1:47:30). They seem to find common ground on the premise that American Law entails no special privileges for any individual let alone groups.

Now I suspect that Kreeft would happily leave it at that, because he obviously doesn't favour any special actions against Islam. On the other hand, I believe Robert Spencer is well aware of the possible need to take precise and specific actions against Islam, e.g. outlaw this so-called religion, but under the circumstances thought it best not to press the issue.

My point is that to be content now to just call for no special actions against Islam (i.e. outlaw it) is to wait for the fight to be forced upon us by ROP'ers. In those circumstances, with things already way out of hand, I fear that govt actions would dramatically affect the whole of our societies instead of just Islam.

We must press for very specific actions against this doctrine of hate, so we must indeed "discriminate" against Islam, just as one should discriminate between good and evil.

Mr. Kreeft doesn't discriminate sharply enough and in that respect behaves just like some atheists do: lumping all "religions" together as an excuse not to target Islam specifically.

Hmm, don't know if this clears things up a bit..


Anyway, always nice talking to you.
Kind regs from Amsterdam and "Certa Bonum Certamen"
Sag.

duh_swami, your mother, judging by the pearls of wisdom she imparted to you, sounds like knowing owl.

Professor Kreeft appears genuine in his goal live his Christian through study, teaching and discussion. For all of this and with clear admission on my part that I haven't read his book, I wonder if he has reconsidered the wisdom of employing a Moslem protagonist in it; whether this could be confused by some as a general approval of Islam.

Non-theists who are genuinely dedicated to Reason and Natural Law are not the enemies of Christians.

They are on the right path and are allies, even if you don't agree with them about everything. There are fundamental aspects of ultimate truth they see and are aligned with. This is a substantial first step, and a firm ground for alliance. It is not a perverse first step, as belief in a "god" who requires rejection of Reason and oppression of others is a perverse first step.

To suggest otherwise is to foment socio-political divisions which are not justified if your purpose includes maintaining sane societies in which Christians are free to use reasoned argument to win converts fairly.

This is also reciprocal. Secularists who are genuinely dedicated to Reason and Natural Law, Christianity is not your enemy. It instructs its followers to refrain from oppressing you. Its adherents have proven the capacity to live up to this standard for substantial portions of history (even if not always). The same is not true of Islam, on either count.

Whatever you think about demons, whether you believe they exist or not, what Islam is pushing for in practice through history is horribly wrong. It is far worse than what people like Jefferson, who believed in Reason and Natural Law despite not being Christian, pushed for. You don't need a demonology to know that.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Robert or should I say Bob? I do believe this is when you have been at your best. Thank you for being the voice to all people in Christ that do not have the "Gift" of teaching. If this is not your best, please direct me to the video that you think is your best. God has blessed you with this "Gift", and you should teach all you know about Islam to the blind that call themselfs Christians.

Hmm, don't know if this clears things up a bit..

Quite a lot. Thank you, Sagunto. Still, I didn't get the impression that R. Spencer was suggesting even slightly that Islam be directly outlawed, only that a certain elements of it that collide with the American Constitution and national interest be outlawed.

With all respect for R. Spencer, I don't think this will have lasting consequence. Islam wil not only survive but expand and grow stronger regardless of the limitations forced on it by the American Law because its growth is assured by constantly growing moslem population. When the number of moslems is big enough and they, like the leftist before them, penetrate and, in sufficient degree, sway american institutions they will be able to remove the constrictions imposed to Islam by the American Law.

take care, Sagunto

Thomas

Mr. Spencer, I listened to the entire debate, I was very interested when you claimed that the Muslim legal term for marriage is considered a curse word in the Muslim world. Would you care to elaborate on this claim? Namely, which word are you talking about?

Thanks

Hats of for Robert for having the capability to learn from such a muddle-headed professor. Maybe he's become senile in the intervening years, but on the day of this debate the man can't recognize syllogisms when they are bashing him over the head. His arguments are as muddled as those of a new-ager.

I don't know if there is an etymological relationship between the word "niquer" (mean to screw of shaft someone) in French, but I've heard that it is related to the Arab word for marriage, "niquah."

Those are excellent questions to ask of anyone who professes to believe in a deity. I wonder how many Muslims can honestly answer them? It seems the only good Muslims are those who are either ignorant of or just don't care much about their faith.

Robert,

You were very effective in this debate.

As a Catholic I was somewhat sympathetic to Prof. Kreeft's position, insofar as it seemed to originate in a sincere concern for the loss of piety among Catholics (and possibly other Christians), which he attributes to the Enlightenment. He charitably sees SOME elements of truth that Islam has lifted from Christianity and Judaism, and he notes that many observant Muslims DO appear to fear Allah. He seems to hope that Christians might be somehow inspired by the Muslim example of piety; that they might provide a good example. Pope John Paul II made a similar observation.

However, I'm glad to see that you didn't lose your focus on providing a candid portrayal of Islam. It is very difficult for many Catholics in our day (even orthodox ones like Prof. Kreeft) to call evil by its name. Your comments were clear and convincing.

As much as the Enlightenment HAS undermined Judaism and Christianity, I can't help but wish it on Muslims.

But I've heard Muslims observe that Westerners (the apes and pigs alike) are powerless against Islam, because they do not truly have spiritual convictions. I'm reminded of Prof. Kreeft's Islamic student, mentioned in the debate. I thought this young man's comments were right on the money. They can look at us and recognize that we do NOT truly live as though we believe what we claim (that is, among those of us who believe).

Please keep up this important work.

So, when exactly does the next crusade begin?

I thought it obvious that Prof. Kreeft's Muslim student at times was putting it on too strongly. Is there any doubt that he was making full use of Kreeft's naivety in Interfaith matters combined with a tendency to think students ignorant? No, I think the Muslim student knew exactly what he was doing and saying all along.

I am not Mr.Spencer but I can answer this question somhow.
The word that is translated as "marrige" in the Koran is "Nikkah" or the f... word. This word means intercourse. While I read from Islamic apologists tthat the Arabs at Muhammads time used another word for fornication, I have the impression that Muhammads God (as so often) didnt have a concept of marrige, fornication, rape or prostitution, just "leagal Nikkah" and "illigal Nikkah". So reducing marrige to a contract under wich Nikkah was legal (as long as the husband feeds and provides for his wife, when he dont feed her anymore, he cant demand Nikkah anymore).

Mr.Spencer if I am alowed to ask a question....

Will you debate Mr.Zaed who so proudly proclaimed his "lies about Muhammad"?

Or has he turned tails????

I can perfectly understand why Kreeft is agitating against atheists. In my mind, it is becoming more obvious by the minute, that this whole debate is getting gradually polarized. I have noticed something very disconcerting going on. Both parties (for want of a better term), secularists and Christians separately are getting defragmented. Peter Kreeft is a typical proponent of the rigid 'there can be no morality without religion' lament. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for somebody like him to naively assume that Islam is a religion on par with Christianity that can act as a moral guideline to people's lives. The logic derived from that would naturally imply that any type of secularism a priori runs counter to any type of morality, above all else.

On the other hand, there is Robert Spencer, who is basically a theologian also, the big difference being that Robert lays emphasis on everything that makes Islam incompatible with modern society. In other words, the very inhumanity and dehumanization that are at the core of Islam as a totalitarian doctrine. Which basically means, that Robert's point of view, although inspired by Christianity, is more easily understood by both those Christians and atheists that consider Islam as an ideology that runs counter to the upholding of fundamental Human Rights.

Which means, in my mind, one doesn't have to be a Christian nor a theologist to draw the same conclusion from looking at the Quran and trying to understand what it holds within. The core issue of such a debate is the preservation of Humanist ideals, regardless of what type of tradition such ideals are rooted in. And this is something that Robert clearly understands, just as I do. Although I am an atheist (though not morbidly opposed to religious people - why on earth should I if we fight the same struggle ?), I have never found myself doubting anything that Robert says on Islam, because I find this perfectly congruent with my own ideas on Humanism.

Alas, Peter Kreeft belongs to a long tradition within Christian churches to debase secularists and atheists as a basic piece of nasty rhetoric to keep the 'us versus them' spirit on the ethics front alive and kicking. Ironically, this is exactly why he would still root for those non-reciprocal interfaith or intercultural dialogues, side by side with those secular atheists that keep the myths of cultural relativism and political correctness going !

So there you have it. When Humanist values are at stake, the main difference revolves around what one believes to be right. The preservation of human rights or the assumption that there can be absolutely no morality without religion ? From the way Robert speaks it is quite clear that atheists and Christians alike CAN gather around the same concept. Peter Kreeft's discourse on the other hand is fundamentally divisive: by assuming that morality is a void concept within secularism, he automatically positions Christianity (as he sees it) AGAINST all others who feel that morality can also be derived from non-Christian sources that can perfectly be reconciled with Robert's concept of Christianity.

Last but not least, I would also refer to what is happening lately in Europe. In countries such as Holland, Belgium and France, Muslim parents have increasingly sent their children to schools of the Catholic school network, to avoid them being indoctrinated by 'heathen' state schools. In Belgium, for instance, there is actually a debate going on within the Catholic school network about offering those pupils Islamic religious education.

Now, anyone can see where this is going: Catholic school authorities are quite happy to attract Muslim pupils on two false pretexts.

1) Islam is a moral guideline system, just like Christianity
2) In essence, both Christians and Muslims believe the same to some degree

Think about it. It makes absolute sense to Christians like Peter Kreeft, as opposed to Christians like Robert Spencer or atheists like me.

lol, look at the "lies" dicussion her on JW: I think the answer is obvious. It would serve no purpose.

The mere fact that Peter Kreeft is again referring to the trendy, New Age misconception of Sufism as a type of moderate Islam, says much about his way of thinking. Along with dumbledoresarmy, we all know by now what a load of BS this really is.

Coincidentally, I picked up a copy of Michael Axworthy's book "Iran: Empire of the Mind" last week, which is an interesting read and also highlights another damning fact about Sufism.

Sufis tend to overindulge on imbibing for the sake of reaching the ultimate spirituality in connecting to Allah directly. Much of this worldly, fashionable poetry that sometimes hardly disguises its homoerotical inclinations, has been written under influence.

Not only that, but many rulers of Persian dynasties were actually Sufis or syncretic Shia-Sufi adherents and were historically described as indolent drunkards with a propensity for unmitigating cruelty and violence, in many cases turning into outright mass murder.(a recurring theme in the history of Iran, courtesy of Axworthy's book)

Now, I suppose that can't possibly be a reason for Kreeft to review his ideas about Sufism ? It's so easy to overlook these things, isn't it ?

@
Author Profile Page Isabellathecrusader replied to comment from David Holland | November 9, 2010 2:20 AM | Reply

Any proof of that? By your reckoning I wonder how many Catholics Good Queen Bess murdered.
"
John Foxe was the original source.
Bearing in mind that Robert Spencer has often rightly criticised Muslims for killing people who change their religion.
Speaking at Thomas More college named after a man who as chancellor killed people who changed their religion is a bit ironic.
I would not defend Queen Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics before the Pope called for her murder.
Will you condemn More's murder of Christians?

"Will you condemn More's murder of Christians?"

I for instance condemm any killing of heretics, independant of who did it, if its a saint, I will condemm his actions and clearly admitt that here hid did a horrible sin (I personaly think that not all saints were saints in the matter that they came far in the process of unification with god, but some have just submitted to Gods plan in a crucial time in history and were for this honored by the church. I even dont believe that the church is always right in its canonisations, after all there were periods when most of the churchs hirarchy has fallen into heressy and was corrected only after a time).

Some millitant (Eurasian) orthodox have published a list of all Holy Fathers that aproved the killing of heretics, against this the conservative Theology professor Andrei Kuraev published a list of sayings of other Holy Fathers, that were against the killing of heretics (Even such a Juridist as (blessed) Augustine had a very hard time to aprove the killing of heretics and even in his fatalistic and strict late years didnt like it). This list was originaly written by him in a book were he defended the Catholic Inquisition against the typical lies in its direction, while condemming the the Inquisition as unchristian.

Any murder for ideas is a great sin before God!

Well I have lissened trough half of it or so and its just hillerious how this young Muslim was presented by Dr.Kreeft as a peragon of piety and he was.....compared with Muhammad.
When he said that believing that the eucharist becomming Allah would make him "not stand up again", I remembered that when Muhammad met Allah on his throne he acted very differently..... Imagine you stand before the ABSOLUTE the creator of the whole universe, PERFECTNESS ITSELF.... and all you can do is to bargin about the number of mindless obligatory rituals.... So all that Dr Kreeft did prove is that the human spirit can get higher then Muhammads legalism (same thing with the Sufis), but sorry its not too difficult to be better then Muhammad.

A Muslim must living based on Quran teaching means sharia law and hadits. Ninety percent od 1,5 billion muslim listed are waiting for become a muslim.

We need to spread these figure to all leftists.

We need to spread these figure to all leftists.

Well Mr.Spencer. I have finished it and I must say that I have never seen such a clear victory in my whole life!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Very thoughtful and thought-provoking comment, Anushirvan.

To us it seems that Catholics should consider which group in power would treat them best and tolerate them on equal rights with themselves, when they would be or indeed are in power; The Muslims or the Atheists?

Of course it boils down to the question of the whole set of Democratic laws and values versus the Theocratic opposing set. And I think the Robert Spencer-like Catholics appreciate the Democratic common denominator between the vast majority of Christians AND Atheists, at least in Democratic Nations. This is very probably NOT the common denominator with the vast majority of Muslims, not even those in Democratic Nations.

I also would like to tell you about the opinion of some Jehovah's witnesses, which they apparently get "fed" in their community. That is that in the near future the believers in Jehovah expect a very hostile and oppressive attitude of atheists towards believers and they actually see the rising antagonistic attitude towards Islam as a prelude to such an attitude, by atheists towards them too!

When I can I try to point out to them that the democratic set of laws and values is what should count as of paramount importance in choosing ones alliances. Or so is my position.

Yes, I saw in the TV-series "The Tudors".

The whole idea is quite simple really. Take for instance the hotly debated issue of the burqa-ban in Europe. Imagine for instance a Muslim woman being a job centre consultant who has to guide me to new job opportunities when I am unemployed. As an atheist or a Christian or as an adherent of any other religion (other than Islam), I just might assume that she might be reluctant to help me out if I start considering the fact that

1) she visibly wears symbols of her faith
2) her faith would assume the a priori viewpoint that all non-Muslims are regarded as second-class citizens

Therefore, allowing employees of (local) government agencies to wear a burqa or a hijab would be highly divisive to anyone adhering to another religious belief or philosophy. The whole issue of the burqa ban can be boiled down to two main issues.

1) the question of neutrality within the public sphere where the average citizen gets directly acquainted with (local) government services and legal issues.

2) the upholding of public security

If somebody wants to a priori integrate into their belief system that some segments of society are by default to blame for some religiously/ideologically perceived wrongdoing, than in all likelihood this will not bode well for some people if society would be constructed around such ideas.

Some people would find anti-Judaism perfectly justified within the confines of their 'moral' code (like Nazis), others would a priori put the blame on homosexuals, others on atheists by default, others even to all of the above, some on women specifically, and of course there would be those who would condemn all non-believers and last but not least, there are those people that would condemn all others who would rather see the freedom of speech not infringed upon to criticize the powers that be for justified reasons.

The main issue in my mind is the fact that while Western societies' laws are deeply rooted within Christianity, they naturally had to evolve to the point that they took a secularist form, in order to neutralize the (potential) disdain people had felt towards one another in the past, based on religious/ideological grounds. Which has led to 'equality before the law'. I have always been very weary of people that adhere to any type of view that inherently singles out one or more particular segments of society for persecution, clinging to the notion that such a thing can be morally justified. More often than not, this has led to genocide and inhuman torment, under the guise of morally just rule.

Communists persecuting all religious people or non-communist freethinkers, Nazis persecuting everyone they perceive to be defiling the Aryan Race, Catholics persecuting protestants (like in 16th century France etc.), conversely Anglicans persecuting the Catholic clergy (like in 16th century England and Ireland), Muslims persecuting all non-Muslims...etc. and the like.

That is exactly why Western Law has evolved towards the separation of Church and State, in order to be more representative of society as a whole with regards to legal issues, not judging people by their beliefs but by judging people based on the actions they take and the way these infringe on the rights of others. Alas, history has shown that there are always people who want to superimpose their view of society on the current separation of Church and State, claiming the moral highground for the sole purpose of re-instating some type of moral uniformity, to the detriment of human rights for some.

Which means that in effect, there are both Christians AND atheists to whom the whole matter of human rights is in fact NOT the primary concern ! Both Christians like Peter Kreeft and PC/MC atheists are not even half as interested in the upholding of human rights as they claim to be. If anything, both are way more interested in assuming the role of Moral Vanguard on their own patch, rather than anything else. Quite clearly, Peter Kreeft, by denouncing ALL atheism, has veered towards the blatant acceptance of ALL religions being moral and just without any criticism, which is probably as bad as PC/MC atheists currently trying to superimpose their view on the Separation of Church and State and the freedom of speech for all that goes with it, regardless of their personal beliefs.

I can quite imagine many people in Iran, for instance, currently regretting their support for the Moral Vanguard of Islam in 1979 as much as I can imagine the plight of Christians in Iraq or Egypt feeling the need to flee their countries or Christian orthodox clergy having been persecuted in the Soviet Union. This is not a rift between ALL Christians vs. ALL atheists, but a rift between those Christians and atheists that want to preserve human rights within the established legal framework vs. those Christians and atheists that want to superimpose it with the idea that their outlook can be the only truly righteous one to rule society. Which makes Peter Kreeft's position, by cosying up to Islam, baffling to most atheists and Christians alike on JW, although it's no surprise to me. Such a view on things can only naturally collude with Islamism, parallel to the PC/MC view.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter