Of Jihad

[Daniel Peterson]

I've been off visiting people in Huntsville, Brigham City, and Logan with two friends today, and, among other things, saw some very beautiful country. During my absence, though, it seems that more accusations have been leveled against me on a board where I don't (and won't) participate. I'll respond in Q&A format. If the moderators here don't like this, they're welcome to close the thread, delete it, ban me, or whatever.

Seeker: Professor Peterson, do you believe that jihad is invariably defensive?

Peterson: No.

Seeker: Are you attempting to equivocate between theory and practice?

Peterson: No. I don't believe that jihad has always been defensive in practice, and I don't believe that jihad has always been conceived as purely defensive even in theory.

Seeker: Xander/Kevin says that you believe that jihad is always defensive.

Peterson: I'm aware of that. It's why I've granted this interview.

Seeker: Do you have any idea why he's making that claim?

Peterson: No, not really. I imagine that he believes that I've said so.

Seeker: Have you said so?

Peterson: Not as far as I can recall.

Seeker: You do realize, don't you, that Xander/Kevin will now scour the web to find you saying precisely that?

Peterson: Of course.

Seeker: If he finds an unambiguous statement to that effect from you, how will you react to it?

Peterson: I'll be surprised. I'll find it very difficult to explain, because, to the best of my memory, I've never so much as thought that jihad was purely defensive. (The first Arab attacks on the Byzantines at the very end of Muhammad's life, for instance, cannot really be explained as "defensive.") And I've never seen Islam as a monolith. There are different schools of thought on every issue, including this one, and we're talking about a variegated civilization, roughly fourteen centuries old and extending from Morocco to the Philippines and from Indonesia to Ghana. We'll cross that bridge when (and if) we come to it, I suppose. Perhaps I'll plead temporary insanity, if need be.

Seeker: Xander/Kevin says that you've been experiencing a "meltdown" over the past twenty four hours or so. Is that true?

Peterson: Not as far as I can tell. I wrote a column yesterday. (It will appear in the Deseret News tomorrow morning.) I watched The Avengers with my wife and daughter-in-law. I participated in a couple of meetings on various topics. I posted seven entries on my blog ("Can a Mormon Be a Loyal American?", "Elizabeth Warren: The Gift that Keeps on Giving," "Seeking a Director of Publications," "Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology: Call for Papers," "Just Back from 'The Avengers,'" "'Middle Class Joe," and "'Critique of Christian Origins.'" I read some poetry by Theodore Roethke, a few magazine articles, and a couple of chapters in a book on Byzantium. I played with a little black puppy. And so forth. But I'm afraid that I don't remember experiencing a meltdown. In fact, if one is to judge from the number, intensity, and seething hostility of his posts over the past day or so, one might make the case that it seems to be Xander/Kevin who's been having a meltdown.

Seeker: Thank you very much, Professor Peterson, for your extraordinarily excellent answers.

Peterson: It was nothing. You're welcome.

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Tarski]

I watched The Avengers with my wife and daughter-in-law.

That was a good TV show. I liked Mrs. Peel.

[Daniel Peterson]

I liked her, too. But, alas, that show is not The Avengers of which I speak. As thou knowest full well.

Incidentally, I've read just a bit more from Xander/Kevin. He speculates that I had him banned here. (Evidently, he's been banned.) He speculates, further, that I offered the moderators a choice: Xander/Kevin or me.

Next, assuming that those two speculations -- both of which I deny -- are true, he condemns me as "an overgrown child."

My denial, of course, will now prove that I'm a liar.

It really doesn't get much deeper or sophisticated than that, I'm afraid.

Back to my meltdown. I think, tonight, that it will take the form of watching the second half of a really intriguing British murder mystery.

[Calm]

I love british murder mysteries. Which one?

[Tarski]

As a long time mostly silent observer of Kevin and his online activity I would like to offer a datum.

Kevin several times argued with me over politics, over the degree of Einstein's atheism, about racism, and about Dennett's take on consciousness.

He was at times aggressive, wordy, frustrating, and I still think wrong about several points. He disagreed with me.

However, he didn't once call me a liar.

So it can't literally be true that he calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. I am a counter-example.

Indeed, I think he calls someone a liar when he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that that person has been deceptive. He can usually give details and quotes. So maybe it isn't just the mere fact of disagreement. He really comes to the judgement that there was a deception.

Even when I was on the receiving end of his rhetorical excesses, I still somehow liked him. He had a certain charm and still does. I personally know that he takes apologies very gracefully and can have a civil discussion. He goes to a lot of trouble to look things up and read about whatever topic he is going on about.

I think his absence is a real loss and I hope it isn't permanent

Edited May 19, 2012 by Tarski

[Daniel Peterson]

So it can't literally be true that he calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. I am a counter-example.

I'm aware that there are exceptions. Surprisingly few, though. He's extraordinarily free with the description.

Even when I was on the receiving end of his rhetorical excesses, I still somehow liked him.

You may well be a better man than I am.

He had a certain charm and still does.

It's been years and years since I've detected any charm in Xander/Kevin. Frankly, I can't remember it.

I personally know that he takes apologies very gracefully and can have a civil discussion.

I'm not even slightly inclined to apologize for holding opinions that he despises.

I think his absence is a real loss and I hope it isn't permanent

I didn't ask for his banning -- I don't think, off hand, that I've ever asked for anybody's banning, contrary to common fantasy, supposition, and myth among a few of my critics -- but, recognizing that I might be wrong in my estimation, I see little or no loss in Xander/Kevin's absence and I wouldn't mind never hearing from or about him again.

Life is short. People are many. There are plenty who are more pleasant and interesting to talk with.

Of course, I don't expect or intend to be spending all that much time here, so, if the moderators eventually allow Xander/Kevin back onto the premises, I won't complain. I'll just do what I've tended overwhelmingly to do over the past years: Ignore him.

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

I love british murder mysteries. Which one?

Sorry. My wife chose it the other night, and I'm not sure that I ever caught the exact title. I'll report after we watch the conclusion tonight.

I love British murder mysteries, too.

[CASteinman]

That was a good TV show. I liked Mrs. Peel.

Her name was a play on words sort of or on letters.

Emma Peel = M-appeal = Man Appeal = She attracts men.

[Daniel Peterson]

We just finished watching Place of Execution. I liked it a lot. And the conclusion surprised me somewhat.

A week or two ago, we watched Collision, which I also liked. This was much darker.

[Stargazer]

Back to Jihad.

I've thought about this thing a lot. I know Prof. Peterson has a low opinion of me because of something I posted here regarding Islam once upon a time. And I wasn't proud of the sentiment -- I don't remember precisely what it was, but I think it might have been something along the the lines of my having a deep mistrust of Muslims. I admit it. I am not pleased with this attitude. But every damned time I think that I really ought to work to expunge this attitude, I also cast my mind back to the constant drumbeat of Muslims blowing themselves up, Muslims stoning girls for peccadilloes like socializing with single men, and events like a fire in a girls' school in Saudi Arabia, where the girls were locked in and prevented from escaping, all because their outer clothing was in an inaccessible part of the school and they would have to exit uncovered. So it was better that they burned to death. And then there's all these Muslim converts going violent Jihad, because that's what they think their new religion wants them to do.

And it is so charming that all an author has to do to get a death sentence is to write something that offends some cleric. Shahin Najafi is one such person. An Iranian ex-pat, Najafi wrote a song that some folks considered to be offensive about the Tenth Imam. Because of this, Najafi is now in Salman Rushdie's position.

As of 15 May 2012, more than 800 people in Iran had joined a Facebook campaign calling for Najafi to be executed, saying they were ready to assassinate Najafi if necessary. An Iranian web site, Shia-Online.ir, offered a $100,000 bounty to anyone who killed Najafi.

Is that a bounty for anyone who does it? Or does one have to be a Muslim to qualify?

I actually don't know any Muslims. I am sure they are fine people and most I will meet here in the US will adhere to the social contract we have in the West, but many of them have traveled here from afar and have murdered and attempted to murder, all for their faith.

Call me paranoid if you want, but I know of no other faith that has such a violent current history. It may be that there are people afraid of Mormons because of one thing or another, but a fear of Mormons, Jews, Bahais, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Buddhists, or even Atheists, is simply irrational. A fear of Islam or even of Muslims may be highly rational and possibly a survival trait. Hell, you can't even count on being safe if you're a Muslim yourself! Most of the suicide bombers kill nobody but fellow Muslims.

Are we off-topic yet? I may delete my own post, it is so embarrassing. I wish like hell I could look at Islam with all the respect that some people think it is due.

[Daniel Peterson]

I actually don't know any Muslims.

And that, I think, is a fundamentally important point.

I know of no other faith that has such a violent current history.

Nor do I.

I don't advocate putting on rose-colored glasses. I advocate balance.

Knowing some ordinary Muslims would probably help. And knowing more about Islam generally, and about the history and culture and art and literature of Islamic societies would also likely be useful.

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Stargazer]

And that, I think, is a fundamentally important point.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I've also not met any Bahais, nor any Jains, nor any Zoroastrians. And from these I do not expect anything other than peaceful interactions.

The same is not true for me of Muslims. I am not, you understand, afraid of meeting a Muslim. I expect to be merely quietly watchful, at least until I feel I know the individual in question sufficiently. Maybe one of these days I can approach the subject with an attitude more akin to yours.

The thing is I can appreciate the potential for greatness that exists in that religion. That religion (and culture) have brought forth some very admirable things. I love, for example, the poetry of Omar Khayyam. Here's an example that particularly catches my fancy:

If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,

Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,

In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl,

There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo.

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. For which of course I must rely upon translation to enjoy. I imagine in the original Persian it is much better appreciated.

Sigh.

I don't advocate putting on rose-colored glasses. I advocate balance.

Knowing some ordinary Muslims would probably help. And knowing more about Islam generally, and about the history and culture and art and literature of Islamic societies would also likely be useful.

You're assuming that I do not know much about Islam or its history and so on. But you would be wrong. I am not, of course, anywhere near your league, Dear Doctor, but I read widely in many disciplines and have not stinted on Islam. For example, I know to append a mention of Muhammed's name with the salah. Of course, I cannot do so in Arabic, but...

And to you, Dear Doctor, I say as-salamu `alaykum !

[Hamba Tuhan]

I actually don't know any Muslims.

I do. In fact, I used to live in Indonesia, which has the largest population of Muslims of any nation on earth. I also have Muslim friends where I now live. As already suggested above, I strongly suspect knowing a few Muslims would impact your attitude toward the followers of Islam in a general sense.

For what it's worth, I've met a number of people in my lifetime who, upon finding out that I was a Latter-day Saint, were afraid of me. Thankfully, as research clearly indicates, actually know a 'Mormon' goes far in addressing negative attitudes toward the Church and its adherents.

[Stargazer]

I do. In fact, I used to live in Indonesia, which has the largest population of Muslims of any nation on earth. I also have Muslim friends where I now live. As already suggested above, I strongly suspect knowing a few Muslims would impact your attitude toward the followers of Islam in a general sense.

For what it's worth, I've met a number of people in my lifetime who, upon finding out that I was a Latter-day Saint, were afraid of me. Thankfully, as research clearly indicates, actually know a 'Mormon' goes far in addressing negative attitudes toward the Church and its adherents.

Well, I am not trying to say that I would be actually afraid of a Muslim if I happened to meet one. I would be rather observant of the person, however, until I had a handle on that person. On the other hand, and as I indicated above, there are lots of people of various religious persuasions I have never run into and would not be in the slightest manner apprehensive of.

I guess I am poisoned by the fact that almost every time I read about some case of mass murder / terrorism, a Muslim is involved, frequently on both ends. It's like the old joke about lawyers: 98% of lawyers give the 2% a bad name.

[jwhitlock]

We had a group of Muslims over from the local Islamic Center one evening for a discussion between them and a group of LDS. Informal discussion, some refreshments, a bit of socializing, very informative. My take on Islam is that there are people from all bands of the spectrum, just like most other large group demographics. Whether Muslims are particularly weighted towards what we would term the negative end of the spectrum is not something that I can make any observation about. I just know that there are Muslims that I would enjoy associating with, and there are those that I wouldn't.

From my reading, I do find that the general attitudes of Muslims towards Jihad, non-Muslims, etc., are very heavily influenced by whatever society they're living in. I think it's probably fairly safe to say (anyone more in the know, please correct me) that there are certain countries with heavy Muslim populations where non-Muslims and Muslims get along relatively well, and there are other countries where a great deal of intolerance and persecution by Muslims happens.

In the United States, I think that Muslims have more to worry about from an acceptance standpoint than the rest of us do.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I am not trying to say that I would be actually afraid of a Muslim if I happened to meet one. I would be rather observant of the person, however, until I had a handle on that person. On the other hand, and as I indicated above, there are lots of people of various religious persuasions I have never run into and would not be in the slightest manner apprehensive of.

I guess I am poisoned by the fact that almost every time I read about some case of mass murder / terrorism, a Muslim is involved, frequently on both ends. It's like the old joke about lawyers: 98% of lawyers give the 2% a bad name.

Roughly 98% of the mafiosi that I've heard of come from Italian backgrounds. This fact wouldn't really justify being warily observant every time I met an Italian-American, though, just waiting to see whether he'll try to whack my kneecaps or cut off my right index finger. And, happily, I've known Italian-Americans all my life as individuals. Very few of them, I'm reasonably confident, have belonged to the Mafia.

At least 98% of the modern Americans that I hear about who live in polygamous compounds are believers in Joseph Smith. Fortunately, I know several believers in Joseph Smith myself, personally, so I tend not to assume, every time I meet one, that he or she lives in a polygamous compound.

Look. There's no question that contemporary Islam, particularly in its homelands, still hasn't really adjusted adequately to democracy, modernity, and etc. There's no disputing that much of the Islamic world is seriously dysfunctional right now. There's absolutely no doubt that there is enormous instability and violence in the region, and that such things are overflowing the region's borders.

But it's still a fundamental mistake to reduce the faith of al-Ghazali, Ibn Tufayl, Rumi, Rabi‘a al-Adawiyya, Hafiz, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Biruni, Ibn al-Haytham, Firdawsi, Ibn Rushd (Averroës), and al-Shafi‘i to -- or to conflate one's Muslim neighbor's or co-worker's or cardiologist's faith with -- that of 'Usama b. Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sayyid Qutb, and Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

I must be mad. Simply insane.

Xander/Kevin seems to be claiming that this thread and the other one that I started a couple of days back attack him out of the blue, without provocation, that he'd been saying nothing at all about me.

I must be hallucinating. There can be no other explanation.

What was in that chocolate milk that I drank the other day?

[cdowis]

Seeker: Thank you very much, Professor Peterson, for your extraordinarily excellent answers.

Peterson: It was nothing. You're welcome..

interview note: As the interview concluded, I noted a twitch from the left corner of his mouth, and his eyes were glazed over.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Xander/Kevin seems to be claiming that this thread and the other one that I started a couple of days back attack him out of the blue, without provocation, that he'd been saying nothing at all about me.

I can see what Tarski meant by "charming."

I must be hallucinating. There can be no other explanation.

At least you weren't implicitly accused of lying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Dr. Peterson,

I've heard many Christian Apologists ask the question:

"Was Osama bin Laden a faithful Muslim?"

It seems that their primary source is Sharia Law as a means to say that he was. What would your response to this apologetics tactic? I'm not a fan of misrepresenting Islam in such a way.

[treehugger]

Dr. Peterson,

I've heard many Christian Apologists ask the question:

"Was Osama bin Laden a faithful Muslim?"

It seems that their primary source is Sharia Law as a means to say that he was. What would your response to this apologetics tactic? I'm not a fan of misrepresenting Islam in such a way.

I am not a fan of misrepresentation either. However, we must acknowledge that within Islam and say Judaism, there is no centralized leadership that is sustained and supported by the general body of the respective religion. This means that any one person can claim authority; such a system leads to subgroups who all use the same text to justify their actions.

A straight forward reading of the OT would suggestion that Orthodox Jews live the way all Jews should live. The same could be said of Islamic Jihadist. Each religions texts do in provide scriptural justification for the acts of faction. And then we add in the interpretation of the respective "leaders".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must be mad. Simply insane.

Xander/Kevin seems to be claiming that this thread and the other one that I started a couple of days back attack him out of the blue, without provocation, that he'd been saying nothing at all about me.

I must be hallucinating. There can be no other explanation.

What was in that chocolate milk that I drank the other day?

Dr. Peterson, what do you think would happen if you simple ignored him?

Edited May 19, 2012 by treehugger

[Stargazer]

But it's still a fundamental mistake to reduce the faith of al-Ghazali, Ibn Tufayl, Rumi, Rabi‘a al-Adawiyya, Hafiz, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Biruni, Ibn al-Haytham, Firdawsi, Ibn Rushd (Averroës), and al-Shafi‘i to -- or to conflate one's Muslim neighbor's or co-worker's or cardiologist's faith with -- that of 'Usama b. Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sayyid Qutb, and Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.

I sincerely hope so. Thanks for the good words.

[Stargazer]

Dr. Peterson, what do you think would happen if you simple ignored him? Is this post meant to encourage others to circle their wagon around you? Can you explain why his activities are important enough to relate to the rest of us?

Dr. Peterson is one of most maligned and misrepresented posters on this board, and has a large, vociferous and vicious coterie of personal enemies, and judging from the vociferocity and viciousness of some of them, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them are psychopaths. And I mean that quite literally.

And you think that just ignoring them while they spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do would do any good at all? For anyone?

You must be new here.

[treehugger]

Dr. Peterson is one of most maligned and misrepresented posters on this board, and has a large, vociferous and vicious coterie of personal enemies, and judging from the vociferocity and viciousness of some of them, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them are psychopaths. And I mean that quite literally.

And you think that just ignoring them while they spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do would do any good at all? For anyone?

You must be new here.

Do you think that this back-and-forth on issues unrelated to Doctrine/Teaching of the LDS Church, which back and forth relates solely to the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, do any good at all? For anyone?

Edited May 19, 2012 by treehugger

[CA Steve]

Do you think that this ***-for-tat, for the spewed vileness about him as far as wide as they do, would do any good at all? For anyone?

Popcorn sales are up.