Jordan Peterson was correct in highlighting this inter-faith conflict, and those five “thinkers” all failed to acknowledge it.
https://www.wfdd.org/story/sunni-muslim-held-connection-killings-shia-men-new-mexico

Thanks for inviting us to the light of Christ

We’re here already! We invite you to join this light so you can be saved from the everlasting torment that await all who worship 3 persons, be they peaceful and law abiding or violent.

Well, there’s been some lag time here, but first of all, thanks for the response.

Full disclosure: I’ve been a student of Islam for over thirty years, and a teacher of it for about one quarter of a century.

First, Sam, it is never — and I mean, *never* — prudent to tell *anyone* that his religion is the root of a problem. That is much like criticizing a man’s wife in his presence. However convinced you may be of the ‘truth,’ the approach is more often ill-mannered and highly ineffective. Try reading some Dale Carnegie books and you might learn a thing or two about how to be an influential missionary.

Second, Christianity provides rationales for martial action in “just war” theories. How else, throughout the course of history, could a predominantly Christian west delegate authority to standing armies and domestic police forces if killing were unequivocally anathema to Christianity? (BTW, the commandment is “Thou shalt not do murder,” not “Thou shalt not kill.”)

Third, you lament that the writers in the article didn’t ‘engage JP’s points.’ I think it’s more obvious you simply didn’t like what they had to say, as they *did*, in fact, engage his talking points, a number of which evince terrible political ignorance or simply condescending, patronizing rhetoric.

To wit …

The Abraham Accords (AA) are *not* an indication that the greater Arab Muslim world (and even the Arab Christian world) is nigh upon peace with Israel. They are a carefully orchestrated PR campaign that favors both Israel and the Arab potentates running their respective countries. Those potentates leverage their treaty with Israel to obtain surveillance technology that allows them to play Big Brother, stifling dissent and locking away political opponents even when their criticism is entirely legitimate. The AA are much like a Potemkin Village: we see them and think, “Oh, how wonderful, peace is finally breaking out!” while millions, sight unseen, continue to suffer under those ‘normalizing’ regimes.

For JP *not* to understand this reality of the accords speaks about his ignorance of world affairs. He looks completely uninformed, as if he’s just parroting Zionist talking points.

If you think the AA means anything more than a concerted effort to preserve totalitarian regimes while throwing Palestinians under the proverbial bus, you’re simply not well read about the Arab street.

“Were I to replace ‘Islamic’ with ‘Christian’, would you be receptive to what I had to say?’
– It would depend on the context of the statement. Christians, like Muslims, have been known to have done great things and terrible things. Not every evil thing a Muslim does is motivated by Islam. Not every evil thing a Christian does is motivated by Christianity. Further, the actions done by secular Western people should not automatically be identified as “Christian.”

JustinT, please don’t forget that Islam is both a spiritual, and geo-political / martial faith. Politics and power are integral to the faith as Muhammad taught.

Yes, my tone is aggressive, but honestly I expected a better, more honest response by the Muslim thinkers. The fact that they failed to truly engage JP’s points but instead spent a great amount of time criticizing him personally, actually makes JP’s points all the more true. Even you can see that. All these thinkers seem to turn a blind eye, or a near blind eye, to the violence within the Islamic world.

“What am I trying to achieve?” Well, I am a Christian and I would like to see Muslims come to the light of Christ. That can be accomplished in a variety of ways including accurate criticism. You also asked, “That Muslims need to ditch parts of their religion to solve ‘today’s problems’?” Yes, absolutely they need to ditch parts of their faith that contribute to today’s problems. This is exactly what the Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah are saying, and doing, in Indonesia? If so many millions of Muslims there welcome and agree with their message should my similar viewpoint be discounted because I am not a Muslim?

Interfaith dialog must be honest and frank. Muslims are never shy about bringing up the crusades, and rightly so, likewise Christian should be honest, and accurate in their criticisms of Islam.

“you are a subject matter expert and you have been an inspiration to me and to countless others. I listen to you very carefully and I am proud of you and all the hard work that you do. I am only asking that you do not stretch yourself too thin. some topics such as islam and the muslim world which I have experienced personally (I grew up in a muslim country as a christian) are simply too complex. please tread carefully. Suni’s do not hate shia’s, islam does not hate jews or christians. I’m afraid that you might be falling victim to the same media that you are fighting against. there are a few radical, fanatic, extremist muslims who I’ve encountered personally, just like any other group. don’t get trapped.”

Muslims constitute nearly 1/4 of humankind. Ironically, JP appears manipulated by the very media he routinely criticizes, projecting an image of perpetual conflict among Muslims that simply doesn’t withstand close scrutiny.

What’s more, Islam was the first religion to codify religious liberty, which is why you’ll still find ancient churches and synagogues throughout lands that Muslims ruled for over 1,000 years. (Violations of this have always been an exception to the general rule.)

Had Muslims contempt for other religions and their adherents, these houses of worship would not have retained their non-Islamic character to this day.

“… part of today’s problems stem from that Islamic root.”

Were I to replace ‘Islamic’ with ‘Christian’, would you be receptive to what I had to say?

You’ve spilled a lot of squid ink here. What, exactly, do you imagine you’re trying to achieve with such a hostile tone? That Muslims need to ditch parts of their religion to solve ‘today’s problems’?

As I see it, it is precisely these kind of condescending diatribes that do *not* contribute to interfaith peace.

Here are my comments about Peterson’s statements and the five published responses from the Muslim thinkers.

While Peterson is not very knowledgeable about Islam he knew enough to comment accurately. Here is my summary of his points:

1) Muslims should stop fighting among themselves
2) Muslims should stop regarding the Christians and Jews as their primary enemies.
3) He encourages Muslims to fight the Satanic impulses towards violence.
4) He encourages Muslims to live righteous lives so they are an example for non-Muslims to attract them to Islam.
5) He states that Muslims have much in common with the People of the Book.
6) He generously states that even most of his harshest critics are not monsters but could be reasoned with.
7) He encourages Muslims to reach outside their circle and get to know non-Muslims in a friendly way.

Uthman Badr only touches on Peterson’s points 1 and 2.
1) He criticizes JP personally
2) He blames “secularism” as the root cause for the problems within the Islamic community, and between the faiths, i.e. it has caused Muslims to be violent. (Tell that to the Shia who are often massacred by the Sunni in Pakistan).
3) He states that Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia are secular regimes!

Yahya Birt does not touch on a single one of Peterson’s points
1) He criticizes JP personally. Other than that he says nothing about the actual points JP raised.
2) He sees some sort of conspiracy in JP’s message and relegates to Pharaoh.

Ahmed Deeb
1) He likens JP’s points to what Islamophobes say.
2) He criticizes JP personally.
3) He twists JP’s points, (
4) He does have enough courage and integrity to admit there is some truth in what JP stated.

Sharif Abu Laith
1) He criticizes JP personally.
2) He blames “colonialism” as part of the root of the problem.
3) He blames Western support of puppet-like rulers (e.g. Al-Sisi in Masr), as part of the root of the problem. (Please note that the Egyptian people, not the West, threw the Muslim Brotherhood out!).
4) He’s ambivalent towards the attacks upon the Copts in Egypt).
5) He blames the West for the rise of ISIS and other murderous Islamic terror groups.

Samir Hussein
1) He strongly criticizes JP personally.
2) He acknowledges that JP is 100% correct that Muslims should stop killing each other.
3) He states that the interfaith fighting is due to politics.
4) He plays the “Orientalist,” “racist,” and “Islamophobe” canards instead of addressing the actual issues, both current and historical.
5) He is generous in acknowledging JP’s even-handed position towards Muslims and encourages more interfaith dialog.

My comments
1) Not a single Muslim commentator here engages JP’s points fully. Only two had the decency to acknowledge that there was some truth in his points. This is a dismal and shameful embarrassment for a collection of “thinkers.”

2) Several of the commentators played the cowardly “Islamophobe” card instead of addressed JP’s points head on. Today, even some of the most ardent liberals are acknowledging the glaringly obvious problems the world sees plainly, i.e. the violence in the Islamic world toward Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As Renard stated, “The first victims of Islam are the Muslims.”

3) Most of the points JP made parallel exactly what Muhammad taught. For example
points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are simple echoes of what Muhammad commanded his followers to do. Why then do these Muslim thinkers decry Peterson’s message? Is it because he’s a non-Muslim? Would it have been more acceptable if JP dressed like a Sheikh and wore a disguise to deliver his message. I’m willing to be that if he did, that many Muslims would have agreed wholeheartedly with the message.

4) Notice the thinker’s immediate reactions to blame, “secularism, “colonialism,” “racism,” “Islamophobia” and the “West” for the root of these problems? You cannot blame these for the immediate divisions within the Islamic world following Muhammad’s death. Members of Muhammad’s family and closest friends were all at each other’s throats within one generation. You cannot blame the War of the Camel, the murder of Uthman, the murder of Ali, the battle of Siffin, etc. on any of these. Further, you cannot blame the persecution and killing of Shia in Pakistan, the GAS massacres in Algeria, the ISIS battles against fellow Muslims, etc. on any of those excuses.

5) Islam is both a religious and political system and part of today’s problems stem from that Islamic root.

6) Islam is fashioned to be a dominate faith and part of today’s problem’s, (e.g. the persecution and killing of the Copts in Egypt), stems from that historical Islamic root.

7) These Muslim thinkers do not want to accept responsibility for the crimes Muslims, motivated by Islam, have committed. Yet more and more and more the rest of the world sees it clearly. Without the integrity to admit that the sun shines in the sky leaders and thinkers like these five will continue to lead the Islamic world downward.

I know too many good and decent Muslim people to know that they deserve better than this kind of thinking and leadership. The people of Egypt deserve better than what Islam has given them.

For Shaykh Deeb, I would suggest you overestimated how much young Muslims know or care about Jordan Peterson, or about political or ideological struggles that aren’t always directly impacting them. 90% of young Muslims in the west have never even heard of this guy and the people commenting std not representing of the state of the community. Of course there needs to be a response from us a holistic one, but JP popularity is mainly from talking about hot button topics rather then a true intellectual movement.