LDS "world famous scholar" publishes book

[_Levi]

Pipes is a worthless doctrinaire. See the Slate article about him at http://www.slate.com/id/2086844/. Christopher Hitchens calls him "sophomoric."

Let me get this straight. Everything is worthless crap unless it is peer-reviewed. Yet, you immediately abandon that principle by directing our attention to a sleazy article writen by a journalist hatchet man, who presumes to have a clue and the background to discredit Harvard trained Daniel Pipes on matters of his own expertise.

Gotcha!

For those interested, Pipes has responded to this ridiculous piece: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/81

You challenged me to cite a response, and I cited a worthless piece of Internet tripe to demonstrate that any one of your raging doctrinaires can be countered with a similar one on the other side. God, you're dense. Go back to your priesthood quorum and ask your Elders Quorum president to clarify his position.

Nor did I say that "everything is worthless crap unless peer-reviewed." Don't reduce what I say to the absurd. Merely, internet authority just doesn't and shouldn't cut it with thinking persons. If it has been peer reviewed or has other indicia of reliability, such as appearing in quality journals (the Wall St. Journal, the NY Times), then there might be something more to be said about it.

But, your knowledge of the Islamic mind and its role in world history is what I would expect to hear when I'm listening to Michael Savage.

Levi Rausch

[_harmony]

You challenged me to cite a response, and I cited a worthless piece of Internet tripe to demonstrate that any one of your raging doctrinaires can be countered with a similar one on the other side. God, you're dense. Go back to your priesthood quorum and ask your Elders Quorum president to clarify his position.

Nor did I say that "everything is worthless crap unless peer-reviewed." Don't reduce what I say to the absurd. Merely, internet authority just doesn't and shouldn't cut it with thinking persons. If it has been peer reviewed or has other indicia of reliability, such as appearing in quality journals (the Wall St. Journal, the NY Times), then there might be something more to be said about it.

But, your knowledge of the Islamic mind and its role in world history is what I would expect to hear when I'm listening to Michael Savage.

Levi Rausch

You're using the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times as quality, reliable journals? So appearing in a newspaper is now the standard? And you expect us to take you seriously?

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist journalist with an agenda. The least you could do is find someone who supports your cause who is unbiased.

I think you'll fit in well here. You're just as delusional as the rest of us.

[_Levi]

You're using the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times as quality, reliable journals? So appearing in a newspaper is now the standard? And you expect us to take you seriously?

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist journalist with an agenda. The least you could do is find someone who supports your cause who is unbiased.

I think you'll fit in well here. You're just as delusional as the rest of us.

No. Everything is on a sliding scale. If you're going to quote worthless non-peer reviewed material for a scholarly point, then at least start with the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or New York Times (liberal).

But, really, Pipes is an embarrassment to the Jewish community. I'm just urging you to be selective and skeptical of authorities. Prof. Dart is a raging, flaming example of all that is wrong with American-Jewish-Muslim relations. He knows enough to rely upon popular sources, but lacks depth in the underpinnings of conflict. I'll bet he'll say the Crusades were a good thing, the Inquisition beneficial to humankind, and slavery of Africa beneficial to the Christianization of blacks in America. I mean, those beliefs are right in line with what appears to be white-sheet mentality here.

Levi Rausch

[_dartagnan]

I have already done so once.

Are there quotation marks? You do know what those are for don't you?

Why not guess.

Because it is entertaining to watch you try to squirm your way out of your own mess. You’re doing everything you can to post-pone a train wreck that has already happened. You’re trying to disarm a bomb that has already exploded egg yoke all over your face.

Again I ask, provide the quotations.

Are you too afraid to look like the brainless bigot you really are?

Adding more insult is not helping you get out of this mess. You need to back up your claims. You said you were quoting me. You said you could prove it. Well, let’s see what you were actually quoting. What are you afraid of?

Do you want me to tell you that this dog won't hunt? (I notice you never challenged the comment that you were a proven liar. Since I can prove that one too, I suppose you do not want people knowing about it?!?!)

The more you keep trying to change the subject, the more you’re credibility is slipping through the cracks.

Again, I asked for references. Provide the "quotes" you claimed were from me.

You're talking about one of your supporters Kevin. What will you do without them to stroke your precious ego and tell you how well researched you are? PS. I know he is one of your supporters since he said “I support Kevin in his criticisms of Islam.” Who needs enemies when you have friends like these?

That’s nice. Now will you please provide the quotations with the references? After all, you’re the one who brought it up.

I have no problem going on record and saying that I do not condone any nuking of Muslim cities, and any “supporter” of mine who does, is a supporter I would rather not have. Osama bin Ladin also agrees with everything Muhammed said and did. Does that reflect poorly on Muhammed?

Now you said "flattening" these cities should be done in the context of statements like, “I agree with dartagnan.” You then claimed you were quoting me in these posts. Now, once pressed to put up or shut up, you say you were quoting someone else. This is appalling, but it is enough to prove you’re just on a mission of hate, and you’ll let nothing get in your way.

Levi still beats the drum,

But, when it comes to the garbage Mr. Dart spews, for him to rely upon Daniel Pipes as his authority is, well, laughable to those who know the issues. I don't think Pipes has much respect in academia.

I mentioned Pipes only because he was the owner of the website you objected to. My “authorities” include far more than Pipes. In fact, they include Muslims themselves. But since you’re strangely enamored with academia, then here are a few excerpts from the eminent Bernard Lewis, often regarded as the authority in the English speaking world.

"From the beginning Islam recognized certain social inequalities, which are sanctioned and indeed sanctified by holy writ. But in the three basic inequalities of master and slave, man and woman, believer and unbeliever, the situation in the classical Islamic civilization was in some respects better than elsewhere... In the course of the centuries, a whole series of radical movements of social and religious protest arose within the Islamic world, seeking to overthrow the barriers that from time to time arose between highborn and lowborn, rich and poor, Arab and non-Arab, white and black, all regarded as contrary to the true spirit of Islamic brotherhood; non of these movements ever questioned the three sacrosanct distinctions establishing the subordinate status of the slave, the woman, and the unbeliever." (Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?, pp. 82-83)

"From a traditional Muslim point of view, to abolish slavery would hardly have been possible. To forbid what God permits is almost as great an offense as to permit was God forbids. Slavery was authorized and its regulation formed part of the sharia." (p.86)

"In Islamic law, conversion from Islam is apostasy - a capital offense for both the one who is misled and the one who misleads him. On this question, the law is clear and unequivocal. If a Muslim renounces Islam, even if a new convert reverts to his previous faith, the penalty is death."( Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam, p.55)

Again, since I consider basic human rights integral to Western democratic societies, it is impossible to consider Islam compatible with this system. Take for example the “democratic” government of Afghanistan. They elected their own leaders, so in a sense that makes them a democracy. However they believe in murdering people for leaving Islam. Just last year there was a controversy when an Afghan converted to Christianity. The entire city wanted his head on a platter, and it took intervention from Condoleeza Rice to stop his execution. Is this the kind of “democracy” we’re talking about? If so, then OK, Islam is compatible with it.

You challenged me to cite a response, and I cited a worthless piece of Internet tripe to demonstrate that any one of your raging doctrinaires can be countered with a similar one on the other side.

Unfortunately, what you presented was not a “counter” to anything I presented within the article that was published by the MEQ. All you did was provide a short blurb from an idiot journalist and pretended that this was somehow equivalent to an educated perspective from a legitimate scholar on the subject. Congratulations. This is somehow supposed to mitigate what was written by an entirely different author, on an entirely different subject?

Gotcha!

God, you're dense.

I’m glad our interaction has helped you realize God exists. Good for you.

[_Levi]

"Gotcha".

I mean, really, how sophomoric is that?

Let's see. Pipes wrote: "“Japanese Internment: Why It Was a Good Idea--And the Lessons It Offers Today”. Do you believe that Japanese Internment was a good thing? See how Prof. Khawaja rips him apart for his Islamic parallels in http://hnn.us/articles/9512.html.


Bernard Lewis's book:

He rarely defines his terms; he might as well be speaking of the moon the way he uses the term "Islamic World."

He assumes that Mideval Islam was monolithic and coordinated; anybody who reads would know that is an idiot position.

He fails to acknowledge that the Ottomans were Christian allies at times. I could go on. He is a poor authority.



Levi

[_harmony]

He is a poor authority.

Levi

And yet you used Christopher Hitchens as an example of a good authority?

What does Japanese interment have to do with Islam? Or are you saying one can only be right all the time if one agrees with you?

[_Ray A]

In advance I'd like to apologize for what is probably going to be a drive-by posting. I work too many hours & have too many commitments at home to do much posting this days (anyone who knows me on the MA&D board or any other email lists, knows that I post infrequently). I do, however, have opportunities to lurk. Some time back I remember reading Tal's comments on RFM that Dan Peterson was unknown among Islamic scholars. One day, out of curiousity, I sent an email to Dr. Hossein Ziai (professor of Islamic and Iranian Studies at UCLA [see his bio here: http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Ziai.htm]). I asked him if he knew Dr. Daniel Peterson of BYU & if so, what he thought of him. (I mentioned that I did not personally know-- and I haven't read-- any of Dr. Peterson's Islamic research, but that, instead, I was simply familiar with Dr. Peterson's writings on LDS issues.) Following, is his unedited reply:

Dear Mr. Ash,
Thank you. Dr. Peterson is a fine scholar of Islam. He has played a
very important, leadership role in helping to establish the Middle
East Text Initiative (METI) at BYU. His work as Managing Editor of
the METI publications is superb. The publication series has made
lasting contribution to the scholarly activity on Islamic
intellectual traditions. This has provided a forum and a means of
allowing meaningful, non polemic, and non apologetic studies and
texts in Arabic and Persian philosophical and other intellectual
traditions to be published in a bilingual format and thus made
available to wider audiences. This is especially important as there
is need both within Islamic studies to encourage and indeed nurture
the role of reason and solidify rationality, and also to inform the
non specialist audiences that there is a place for reason in Islam
which we must recognize, solidify, and uphold. These are very complex
times and the more we devote studies to the rationalist traditions of
philosophy and science in Islam the more we may be able to combat
irrational and hate driven polemics and other propagandist work. Dr.
Daniel Peterson has indeed established himself as a well respected
scholar and publisher of much needed scholarly work in Islamic
studies in general, and of the philosophical tradition in particular.
I personally have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson's work.
Please share this with Dr. Peterson in and related to LDS studies you
are involved at BYU, or elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Hossein Ziai

Quite frankly, I don't have the time or desire to poll nine other Islamacists.

Mike

Mike,

I haven't seen any replies to this so far. I hear Tali Bachman is receiving shock treatment. But don't worry, like Arnie, "he'll be back". When you do get back Tali, do inform us who claimed that DCP is a "world famous scholar". In particular, which Mormons have claimed this, specifically. Your straw man might end up like the twin towers.

[_Levi]

He is a poor authority.

Levi

And yet you used Christopher Hitchens as an example of a good authority?

What does Japanese interment have to do with Islam? Or are you saying one can only be right all the time if one agrees with you?

No; I used Hitchens as an example of a bad authority. For every bad authority Mr. Dart claims from the internet I can counter with more.

I cite the Japanese article to show what an idiot racist Pipes is. [If you read the book you will see the link between Japanese interment and Islam.] He really is, as is your friend Mr. Dart. I know it is hard for you to see.

No, I have said nothing about agreeing with me.

[_Pumplehoober]

Because it is entertaining to watch you try to squirm your way out of your own mess. You're doing everything you can to post-pone a train wreck that has already happened. You're trying to disarm a bomb that has already exploded egg yoke all over your face.

Egg yoke? What is egg yoke? Are those pesky homophones tripping you up again? To be honest yolk and yoke are not really homophones, but to the uneducated who cannot pronounce them correctly, it would be similar.

Anyway, why will you not point out things I said when you claimed I was posing as an anti-Islamic bigot, while quoting you?

What did I say that you disagreed with and what you might have said?

Did you say this…

“Islam is an ideology of hate and bigotry and hands down the most intolerant religion the world has ever seen. Right now Moslims are consolidating themselves to influence political decisions. Moslims are not all the same, but most know that until they reach majority status, and can manipulate the political system, they are in no position to subjugate anyone to anything.”

Maybe this…

“You seem to be under the delusion that since most Muslims do not engage in terrorism, then this means they are against it. True Islam is a serious threat that has impacted virtually every country in the world the past 10 years. It is time we stop pandering to the mythic promises of multiculturalistic relativism and start addressing the tough questions with open, uncensored debate.”

Come on Kevin. If there is “yoke” on my face I should not be able to show where you said things like this. Do you think I can?

[Guest]

Levi, there really is no point in discussing this with you because you’ve already moved the goals posts several times. First you reject Pipes because you say he is not respected in the academic community, so I provide the most respected scholar in the field and you bristle and call his position idiotic. You ridicule online web articles but quickly pull up anything you can to attack Pipes, no matter who it is who is saying it. Someone writes up an opinion piece disagreeing with Pipes on a totally unrelated topic, and you say this “rips apart” Pipes, therefore he is a bad scholar not worth listening to. Good grief, try naming me a scholar who doesn’t have someone out there criticizing him about something. Clearly you have not even read the original article, nor have you read the responses to this one. In any event, since there is no source of authority you’re willing to accept, it is clear you came here with your mind already made up with no intention to learn a thing.

No; I used Hitchens as an example of a bad authority. For every bad authority Mr. Dart claims from the internet I can counter with more.

Now there is some convoluted logic for ya! Since a bad authority (Hitchens) responded to someone negatively, that means the person he criticizes is a bad authority too. You have not even begun to demonstrate Pipes is a bad authority. Anyone who calls Bernard Lewis idiotic clearly hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about.

Now on to Tradd,

Egg yoke? What is egg yoke? Are those pesky homophones tripping you up again? To be honest yolk and yoke are not really homophones, but to the uneducated who cannot pronounce them correctly, it would be similar.

Well, ya got me on that one. I suppose if I were anxious to change the subject, then I would have been criticizing your misuse of the word “quote.” As you were probably taught in high school, the word quote is the verb form of the word quotation. You have on numerous occasions referred to my “quotes,” but I have kept quiet about it because I didn't want to change the subject and make you look stupid. But since you decided to go down that path with me, here are two examples from this thread alone:

“I know you never read the books you claim to, you always find quotes [sic] that appear on the internet”

“You do realize that the title is a quote[sic] of right wing bigot William Donohue?”

Somehow I think an “educated” scholar sporting a MA, would be more accountable for confusing the noun/verb form of a frequently used term, as opposed to an "uneducated" person like me, misspelling a relatively infrequent term like egg "yolk." But I wouldn't feel too badly. This is a common mistake that everyone has made from time to time; though, some of us are willing to learn from mistakes.

Anyway, why will you not point out things I said when you claimed I was posing as an anti-Islamic bigot, while quoting you?

You said you were “quoting” me, and I do not think it is too much to ask that you provide the references; especially in light of your frequent attacks on my honesty and lies about my research ability. Teach us by example and show us what honesty and scholarship are all about. You said you provided a reference but this is not true. You have provided no link to the original. In this discussion, when you have asked me to provide a link to what I refer, I provide without hesitation. You on the other hand realize that you’re in a lose/lose situation, so you’re stalling and trying to change the subject. In the past I have had mercy on you and let you derail, but over the years your repeated emergence for the sole purpose of attacking me, has left me fresh out of pity.

So keep squirming.

Did you say this…Maybe this…

Why won’t you provide the reference?

In the latter example it was urged that we should address tough questions with open, uncensored debate. Who could disagree with that?

Provide the link to all of the “quotes” you claim are from me.

You have falsely accused me of misquoting books you assert I have never read, despite the fact that I typed up pages and pages of excerpts nowhere available on the web. You said this was "always" the case, which you know is a blatant lie. Have you so quickly forgotten the incident when you claimed I cited something that didn't exist in Esposito's book, and then when I produced the text online, complete with page number and publication date, you then realized you were the one who didn't have the latest printing of the book? You were wiping yolk off your face for a month, but several years later you have the audacity to sit here lie by saying I "always" rely strictly on internet citations, when you know perfectly well I was copying from books in my lap. I can produce citations from a half dozen books you'll find nowhere on the web, but somehow I doubt that would encourage you to apologize.

And with all the claims of misrepresentation and misuse of books, here you are claiming to have merely quoted me in your posts as RtLH, while refusing to provide the original references of the “quotes,” and while mangling dozens of sentences and peppering them with your own rhetorical add-ons to sensationalize the content. This is the quintessence of intellectual duplicity, which ultimately makes you a hypocrite for ever trying to take the high horse and criticize others for lesser crimes.

Come on Kevin. If there is “yoke” on my face I should not be able to show where you said things like this. Do you think I can?

I have been asking you to do just that.

The yolk is on your face because of your repeated failure to produce the “quotes” you said you could provide, and your initial insinuation that the posts from RtLH represent only "quotes" from me. You have since been compelled to admit that only certain portions constitute valid quotations from me, and you even stooped so low as to cite another individual entirely while claiming "I agree with dartagnan." Now you're balking when asked to produce them. Raising the issue of a misspelling, while committing a far more serious syntax error yourself, just added a pie on top of the yolk.