Latter-day Saints View of Islam.

[Daniel Peterson]

Would I like to hear more denunciations of jihadi violence?  Absolutely.

Do you have a theory as to why there aren't more such denunciations (even outrage)?

I have ideas, but no real theory.

First, many Muslims (alas) share the grievances and pseudo-grievances of the terrorists, and more than I could wish are not deeply opposed to terrorist methods. The Islamic world is in a state of deep dysfunctionality right now.

Among other things, illiteracy is high, and rumors and paranoid conspiracy theories abound. And Muslim governments often seek to excuse their own tyranny, incompetence, and corruption by blaming everything on the CIA (or Mossad, or the Crusaders and the Zionists, or the international Jewish conspiracy, or the Christians, or whatever). There exists little or no free and critical press in the Muslim world to counter this. And there is widespread bitterness and a sense of humiliation, across the Islamic world.

But I also think that many in the Muslim diaspora are unaccustomed to being able to speak out freely. Moreover, they tend to band together to oppose criticism of fellow Muslims, even if they themselves might be sympathetic to that criticism. And, of course, there is real fear. The extremists kill their critics.

[Tarski]

Would I like to hear more denunciations of jihadi violence?

[USU78]

One thing we must never do is become apologists for bad behavior.

The imperialists got out of nearly the entirety of the Muslim world back in the '60s. Blaming present problems on things that predate Nixon's resignation (which counts as ancient history in my 16-year-old's American History Text) cannot be allowed to cut it any longer. Moreover, the squandering of imperialist infrastructures cannot be blamed on anybody but the folks on the ground.

If Edom and Ishmael are my brothers, it is their responsibility to act like it.

To excuse their dysfunctionality is to enable it.

It's time the Muslim world grew up.

[awyatt]

Would I like to hear more denunciations of jihadi violence?  Absolutely.

Do you have a theory as to why there aren't more such denunciations (even outrage)?

I have ideas, but no real theory.

First, many Muslims (alas) share the grievances and pseudo-grievances of the terrorists, and more than I could wish are not deeply opposed to terrorist methods. The Islamic world is in a state of deep dysfunctionality right now.

Among other things, illiteracy is high, and rumors and paranoid conspiracy theories abound. And Muslim governments often seek to excuse their own tyranny, incompetence, and corruption by blaming everything on the CIA (or Mossad, or the Crusaders and the Zionists, or the international Jewish conspiracy, or the Christians, or whatever). There exists little or no free and critical press in the Muslim world to counter this. And there is widespread bitterness and a sense of humiliation, across the Islamic world.

But I also think that many in the Muslim diaspora are unaccustomed to being able to speak out freely. Moreover, they tend to band together to oppose criticism of fellow Muslims, even if they themselves might be sympathetic to that criticism. And, of course, there is real fear. The extremists kill their critics.

Dan,

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding my post (page 3) on this topic. Here they are, again:

Allen said: I'm no expert on Islam, but wanted to add another thought here. I don't think that the failure to speak out publicly against the violence is entirely due to the lack of wanting to be a target of the violence itself. I think it may also have to do with the fatalism (is that the proper word?) that is inherent in Islam. They believe that anything and everything that happens is the will of Allah. They believe this to an extreme; if something happened, then Allah willed it. Period.

If they speak out against something that happened, they would be speaking out against something that Allah willed. That is blasphemous, in their belief, so they don't speak out.

Dan, am I misunderstanding this particular aspect of the behavior?

Thoughts?

-Allen

[Zeitgeist]

Bump / Reasking

For Dr. Peterson,

I am not sure you can respond to this or not. Your area of study may differ. Even so I would like your honest assessment and opinion. Specifically, I would like to know your opinion of http://www.jihadwatch.org/ and Robert Spencer. I am interested in particular to your thoughts on his books or writings. He comes up a lot in many circles of friends/associates. He seems to have the ear of many in D.C. In what way might you differ with his opinions?

Thanks I sincerely appreciate your thoughts on this topic.

Zeitgeist

[Kolob]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/default.htm avialable for download

Islam Then and Now

Professor Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University in the U.S. believes the key to understanding present Islamic attitudes lies in understanding the religious and philosophical texts of its past. Peterson is Director of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, and was in Australia to donate English translations of important Islamic texts to libraries. In this fascinating talk, he outlines the reasons behind the project, and outlines the historical development of early Islam.

[DH]

Why did in some societies where Islam controlled, were Jews and Christians not allowed to wear the colour green?

Can't answer your other questions, but the color green symbolizes Islam. I imagine they didn't want Jews and Christians wearing green because that might come across as falsely implying they were Muslim. Many flags of Muslim nations use the color green to this day.

[rpn]

What I have learned from a series of Muslim High School Exchange students from the Middle East and Eastern Europe (former Soviet countries) is that revenge expressing itself as violence is much more an element of their culture than it has been in America's recent past. (Though the America I grew up with has changed and demonizing those who are different from ourselves is much more common now. So is road rage and other forms of violent revenge.)

Christ's injunction to tun the other cheek is a relatively new religious phenomena, and one that even Christians haven't always done so well. But it is surely a very different world where that is practiced.

[Daniel Peterson]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/default.htm avialable for download

Islam Then and Now

Professor Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University in the U.S. believes the key to understanding present Islamic attitudes lies in understanding the religious and philosophical texts of its past. Peterson is Director of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, and was in Australia to donate English translations of important Islamic texts to libraries. In this fascinating talk, he outlines the reasons behind the project, and outlines the historical development of early Islam.

Well whaddya know. Thanks for the reference.

[structurecop]

I'll be the first to admit that the Islamic world is going through a very bad period.... That said, though, one should be very, very careful about taking the very noisy and often hateful statements of today's radicals as representing all Muslims....

Every religion, I suppose, has its "noisy" and "often hateful" factions; it's just that radical Islam does not seem to be composed of just small and vocal pockets. Entire nations are hanging in the balance. I see the more moderate elements represented on television and, when asked to denounce radical Islam, their spokesmen always seem to be a bit reluctant in harshly condemning them.

Not only do I see fear on the part of Westerners in angering radical Islam, I think the moderate factions fear them as well.

We have a mosque here in Washington, D.C., and I don't know how well I would be received if I were to show up there as just some Anglo Christian. Are you saying I should be able to go there for a visit with little concern?

I just finished Journey of the Jihadist by Fawas Gerges and found it to be extremely enlightening into the sociology and motivations behind fundamentalist jihadists/Islamicists. At its most basic level, attacks against the West are a continuation of internal civil war. Modern jihad is a method of punishing apostates or those who are corrupted by the influence of the decadent West. Bin Laden's attacks against US assetts and personnel were relatively isolated and not the focus of most of the jihadist community, most of whom refused to work with bin Laden.

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

[juliann]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/default.htm avialable for download

Islam Then and Now

Professor Daniel Peterson of Brigham Young University in the U.S. believes the key to understanding present Islamic attitudes lies in understanding the religious and philosophical texts of its past. Peterson is Director of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, and was in Australia to donate English translations of important Islamic texts to libraries. In this fascinating talk, he outlines the reasons behind the project, and outlines the historical development of early Islam.

This cracks me up....why isn't our dedicated contingent of wannabe experts being picked up by ABC? Does this mean their Mormon conspiracy to keep them down will be widening to (inter)national news?

[Kolob]

Hey Julian you down under too in my neck of the woods?

[BCSpace]

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

[Daniel Peterson]

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

I see, BCSpace, that, on another board (where such things are fashionable), you're accusing me of "duplicity" on the basis of the quoted passage above.

I hope you'll explain why, and that you'll explain why I can't merely be wrong (if I am) but must be accused of being intellectually unethical. As I recall, you're a member of the Church. If so, do you lightly make similar accusations against members of your ward? Do you treat your neighbors this way?

Honestly -- if someone such as myself is permitted to use that word -- I don't see the problem in the quoted passage.

The doctrine of jihad is indeed a part of classical Islam. There's nothing wrong with what I said on that point.

That said, though, there's a debate among Muslims (and has been for centuries) about just exactly what jihad means, and what it entails. The word doesn't mean "war," or "holy war." It means, literally, "striving" or "struggle." It is often used, particularly in the Qurâ??an, to refer to divinely-sanctioned war, but there are also very old traditions of the Prophet Muhammad in which he is represented as distinguishing between "the lesser jihad," which is war, and "the greater jihad," which is struggle against one's own baser self. And there are many moderate and/or modernizing Muslims who argue that jihad, properly understood, can be a matter of working to improve a Muslim country's economy, health care, etc. Finally, there have long been debates about when a war is or should be declared a jihad, and when it is not and should not be, as well as about the rules for conducting such a war (e.g., with regard to non-combatants, and the like).

So there's plenty of discussion about the nature of jihad, its scope, and related issues, but there is virtually no faithful Muslim who would feel comfortable simply jettisoning the doctrine altogether. To do so would be much as the same as, for believing Latter-day Saints, jettisoning the notion of plural marriage and granting the claim of outsiders that Joseph Smith -- and (arguably) his successors -- lied about it being the will of God in order to indulge sexual lusts. We simply cannot do that without undercutting the very source of our doctrines and faith. But jihad need not entail endorsement of Hizb Allah, Hamas, or al-Qaâ??ida.

I'm still not sure where the problem is supposed to be, let alone where I'm being "duplicitous."

Is it that I said that many modern Muslims are hesitant to condemn the jihadis altogether because, at a certain level, many modern Muslims are, to one degree or another, sympathetic to their critique of the contemporary West?

If that's the problem area for you, I'm unable to see why. What I said seems to be me indisputably correct. But even if I'm wrong, how would it make me "duplicitous"?

Please advise.

[BCSpace]

I see, BCSpace, that, on another board (where such things are fashionable), you're accusing me of "duplicity" on the basis of the quoted passage above.

If that's the problem area for you, I'm unable to see why. What I said seems to be me indisputably correct. But even if I'm wrong, how would it make me "duplicitous"?

Ahhhh! Now that would require that I post opinions, exchanges, and names that have been deemed unmentionable on this board. Feel free to respond to posts I post on other boards on those actual boards rather than start a board war over here.

Please advise.

Done!

[Daniel Peterson]

Ahhhh! Now that would require that I post opinions, exchanges, and names that have been deemed unmentionable on this board.

It's a little difficult to understand why, in order to demonstrate that I'm duplicitious (as you've publicly accused me of being), you would need to cite anybody's words but mine.

Feel free to respond to posts I post on other boards on those actual boards rather than start a board war over here.

I have no interest in participating on that board.

I also don't buy your excuse for not wanting to discuss the matter here. You were responding over there to something that I posted here -- and specifically to the passage cited above. It's that passage, posted here, that led to your accusation against me of intellectually unethical behavior. Why would it be wrong to discuss on this board a passage that was posted here on this board? How would that be starting a board war? How was discussing it over there not part of a board war (at least a one-sided one)?

I'm here and available for discussion on this board. (Particularly about things I've posted on this board!) If you would like, I'll make a specific request to the moderators that they waive their normal rules for basic civil behavior on the FAIR board and grant you an exemption, specific to this thread, that will permit you to impugn my character freely, as much and as frequently as you like. Would that create a more comfortable environment for you?

[BCSpace]

I have no interest in participating on that board.

Yet you do have an unusual interest in reading it (for one who claims no interest) and posting from it to this board. As long as you have no interest in responding to my posts on that board with posts on that same board then I guess you'll never get an answer to your question.......as the mods here say......no board wars.

[Daniel Peterson]

Whatever.

I would have appreciated it if you had been willing to clarify your problem with what I wrote on this thread and to have explained your public maligning of my character. Doing so would seem only fair. But, if you're unwilling either to clarify your objection or to justify your accusation, you're free to leave your objection unexplained and your accusation unjustified.

I'm comfortable with that.

[BCSpace]

Whatever.

I would have liked you to clarify your problem with what I wrote on this thread and to have explained your public maligning of my character.

I did not malign your character. I maligned your opinion on a certain issue. Happens on message boards...."open and frank discussions WILL occur".

But, if you're unwilling to do so, you're free to refuse.

I am not unwilling and you already know where to see the answer. But you have to ask the question on the appropriate board. But I have taken note of your unwillingness to answer posts on the boards they were posted on. Ball's in your court. I suspect you'll just leave it lying there.

[zippythepinhead]

Mormons=Muslims=critics of mormons=

[Daniel Peterson]

I did not malign your character. I maligned your opinion on a certain issue. Happens on message boards...."open and frank discussions WILL occur".

Do you routinely accuse your neighbors and fellow ward members of "duplicity"? How charming.

I am not unwilling and you already know where to see the answer. But you have to ask the question on the appropriate board.

I did.

Do I also have to cross my heart and hope to die, and hop on one foot while rubbing my tummy counterclockwise and humming "Finlandia"?

But I have taken note of your unwillingness to answer posts on the boards they were posted on.

I participate on this board. It's more than enough for me. If there are questions being posed to me elsewhere . . . well, those posing them must not really want my answers.

Ball's in your court. I suspect you'll just leave it lying there.

Sounds like a plan.

[BCSpace]

I did not malign your character. I maligned your opinion on a certain issue. Happens on message boards...."open and frank discussions WILL occur".

Do you routinely accuse your neighbors and fellow ward members of "duplicity"? How charming.

I notice how quickly you resort to invective.....

I am not unwilling and you already know where to see the answer. But you have to ask the question on the appropriate board.

I did.

You did not. My claim of your argument being duplicitous was not on this board.

Do I also have to cross my heart and hope to die, and hop on one foot while rubbing my tummy counterclockwise and humming "Finlandia"?

No. You wouldn't want the Fins calling for a constitutional amendment to protect their patriotic symphonic hymn would you?

But I have taken note of your unwillingness to answer posts on the boards they were posted on.

I participate on this board. It's more than enough for me. If there are questions being posed to me elsewhere . . . well, those posing them must not really want my answers.

The assertion of the duplicitousness of your argument was not directed at you. But if it this board is really more than enough for you, why do you pay so much attention to the other ones? The fact that you even noticed shows you have plenty of time for other boards.

[Daniel Peterson]

I notice how quickly you resort to invective.....

BCSpace may not know the definition of the word invective.

Oh well. Never mind.

Perhaps, since BCSpace apparently doesn't want to have a conversation with me here, somebody else can help me to understand why it's inappropriate, and provocative of a board war, for me to ask him to clarify, in this thread and on this board, the questions or objections that he raised, in this very thread and on this very board, regarding a comment that I made in this very thread, on this very board. Because I simply don't get it.

If he doesn't want to explain his public accusation that I'm duplicitous, but would prefer to take rather legalistic refuge in the fact that he leveled that accusation elsewhere and will only justify it there, I'm willing to leave the charge unjustified. No skin off my nose. But it's genuinely difficult to understand why anybody would post something here and then, as a matter of righteous principle, refuse to explain what he's posted or answer any questions about it. That sort of thing seems odd for a message board.

[BCSpace]

I notice how quickly you resort to invective.....

BCSpace may not know the definition of the word invective.

Mr. Peterson is obviously an expert.......

help me to understand why it's inappropriate, and provocative of a board war, for me to ask him to clarify, in this thread and on this board, the questions or objections that he raised, in this very thread and on this very board, regarding a comment that I made in this very thread, on this very board. Because I simply don't get it.

When it includes an assertion I made on another board that you have mischaracterized and FAIR won't allow us to discuss.

If he doesn't want to explain his public accusation that I'm duplicitous

An accusation I never made. I did, however, say, on another board that your answer on a certain topic is duplicitous and since it is the duplicitousness that you wish to discuss, feel free to ask your question on that board and you will get your answer, repleat with examples, quotes etc.

but would prefer to take rather legalistic refuge in the fact that he leveled that accusation elsewhere and will only justify it there, I'm willing to leave the charge unjustified. No skin off my nose

That your nose is flaking even now is evidenced by the fact that you continue to level baseless charges and invective against me.

But it's genuinely difficult to understand why anybody would post something here and then, as a matter of righteous principle, refuse to explain what he's posted or answer any questions about it. That sort of thing seems odd for a message board.

What's odd is why Mr. Peterson must go out of his way to another board (which he claims he doesn't have time for), misrepresent something I said there, and then make it the prime consideration for my answer to his response here.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

He would rather discuss my allegedly poor behavior ("duplicity," according to his comment on another board; "invective," according to his repeated comments here).

Too bad.

For BCSpace's benefit, the definition of invective as it appears in the Oxford American Dictionary: "a violent attack in words, abusive language." I don't recall having been violently abusive of BCSpace here on this thread or anywhere else.