Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
The Demise of the Trinity
"Who will be credited with exposing the Trinity farce? Christians? Jews? or Muslims? or Atheists?"
"With the information age, it is no longer possible to hide facts from people. And what will people's reaction to Christianity be if it is not Christians admitting to this delusion but it is another religious group that demonstrates this doctrine is a lie?"
These are questions asked by a Christian.
Apparently one Christian gentleman has had the doctrine of the Trinity and it's many errors weighing upon his heart and mind for some time. I found the following you-tube entry heart felt and intriguing.
The user does not allow to embed the video nonetheless here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgDRGNtbTs&feature=related
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Coptic Christians: Concealing Testimony of John 1:1
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings of Allah be upon you)
Coptic Christians: Concealing Testimony of John 1:1
"Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you know better." (Holy Qur'an chapter 2:42)
“If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do. ( Holy Qur’an, chapter 2:283)”
We are probably all quite familiar with the text of John 1:1 as has been translated in most Bible translations in the West. http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm
However, as more and more evidence is found that Aramaic, Amharic, Coptic and other languages played a crucial role in the development of the Biblical manuscripts new and interesting information comes into focus.
These are some of the more common translations of John 1:1 based upon available Greek manuscripts.
John 1:1 >>
However, what allot of people do not realize and this is especially true for the Coptic Christian community in Egypt is that they do not even use their own Bible in dealing with John 1:1 !!!
Instead when they translate John 1:1 they use the same English rendition as does the King James translation. Now why would they do that?
See for yourself: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/sahidic-coptic-new-testament/493279
Why wouldn't they use their own particular Bible to translate John 1:1?
Lo and behold!
You have the Sahidic Coptic text where John 1:1 reads “and a god was the Word"
"A significant fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English). The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word 'god' in the final part of John 1:1. So when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: 'And the Word was a god.'"
The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:
"Since the [Septuagint} and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant [still-existing] witnesses."
A quote from a modern Biblical Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace:
"Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion."
This quote is taken from:
http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
"Interestingly, he basically says that scholars can't agree on which verses say Jesus is God. This is because of "textual or grammatical glitches" - verses that have different readings in ancient manuscripts (Such as Acts 20:28) or verses which can be validly translated in a non-Trinitarian manner (Such as Hebrews 1:8). Except, he says, John 1:1."
"This is interesting because in one of his discussions of John 1:1, he says that "god" in 1:1c points to qualities and attributes, and not an identity. Also, he seems unaware of the Sahidic John 1:1."
I want to give credit to the following blog http://copticjohn.blogspot.com for this amazing piece of information.
Eisegesis refers to interpreting a text by reading into it one's own ideas, or other ideas foreign to the text itself. Some apologists continue in a futile attempt to do that with Coptic John 1:1c.
For example, it is claimed that the indefinite ou.noute of Coptic John 1:1c should be translated as 'the one and only God,' because the indefinite article denotes unity, not 'a god.' As a "proof," 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 are quoted, where ou.noute n.ouwt is usually rendered as "one God."
But that is erroneous eisegesis. It is a blatant attempt to read philosophical dogma into Coptic grammar. The Coptic indefinite article ou does not of itself 'denote unity.' It simply means "a" when bound with a common or count Coptic noun like noute, "god." The Coptic text of the New Testament contains hundreds of examples that prove this. (For example, see Coptic Acts 28:6, where the anarthrous Greek theos is rendered by ou.noute in Sahidic (Sahidica) and ou.nouti in the Coptic Bohairic version. Horner and Greek-based English versions including the KJV render this as "a god.")
Further, it is not the Coptic indefinite article ou that means "one," but the bound idiom ou______n.ouwt. This idiom literally means "a single, an only," and is used in Coptic to denote "one," adjectivally: "one god," "one man," "one spirit," etc. (For example, see Coptic Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 17)
Therefore, ou.noute n.ouwt simply means "one god." It is the context, not the grammar, of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 that mandates the translation "one God" because the specific and definite reference in those verses is p.eiwt, "the Father," whom the Lord Jesus identifies as p.noute m.me m.mauaa.F , "the true God alone" (John 17:3 Horner), "the only true God."
Neither the grammar nor meaning of Coptic 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Ephesians 4:6 is the same as Coptic John 1:1c, so those verses cannot be used to exegete Coptic John 1:1c. Whereas ou.noute n.ouwt means a single god, i.e, "one god" or "one God" (in context, with reference to the Father), the fact remains that ou.noute means "a god." It does not mean some philosophical unity that calls for translating it as 'the one and only God.'
It would be far more honest to read Coptic John 1:1c for what it says, instead of trying to import foreign concepts into it.
And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely not, "the Word was God."
The distinguished grammarian and Coptic scholar John Martin Plumley, former professor of Egyptology at Cambridge University and author of Introductory Coptic Grammar, (London: Home & Van Thal, 1948), had this to say about the significance of the Sahidic Coptic version:
"While there are limitations to the use which can be made of the Coptic version as an aid to the recovery of the original Greek text of the New Testament . . . it should also be recognized that by and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine." -- Quoted in The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Daniel Wallace, The Anchor Bible, Bruce Metzger, and John Plumley and the Sahidic Coptic text. These are hardly people who are hostile to Christianity.
It is clear that the Coptic Christian Church does not want this evidence to see the light of day. However, it has seen the light of day.
So to those tri-theist who worship three gods under the cloak of monotheism let this be a reminder to you.
GAME ON....
"Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you know better." (Holy Qur'an chapter 2:42)
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings of Allah be upon you)
Coptic Christians: Concealing Testimony of John 1:1
"Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you know better." (Holy Qur'an chapter 2:42)
“If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do. ( Holy Qur’an, chapter 2:283)”
We are probably all quite familiar with the text of John 1:1 as has been translated in most Bible translations in the West. http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm
However, as more and more evidence is found that Aramaic, Amharic, Coptic and other languages played a crucial role in the development of the Biblical manuscripts new and interesting information comes into focus.
These are some of the more common translations of John 1:1 based upon available Greek manuscripts.
John 1:1 >>
| ||||
However, what allot of people do not realize and this is especially true for the Coptic Christian community in Egypt is that they do not even use their own Bible in dealing with John 1:1 !!!
Instead when they translate John 1:1 they use the same English rendition as does the King James translation. Now why would they do that?
See for yourself: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/sahidic-coptic-new-testament/493279
Why wouldn't they use their own particular Bible to translate John 1:1?
Lo and behold!
You have the Sahidic Coptic text where John 1:1 reads “and a god was the Word"
"A significant fact concerning the Coptic language is that, unlike the Greek, it used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English). The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word 'god' in the final part of John 1:1. So when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: 'And the Word was a god.'"
The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:
"Since the [Septuagint} and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant [still-existing] witnesses."
A quote from a modern Biblical Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace:
"Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion."
This quote is taken from:
http://bible.org/article/sharpi-redivivus-i-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule
"Interestingly, he basically says that scholars can't agree on which verses say Jesus is God. This is because of "textual or grammatical glitches" - verses that have different readings in ancient manuscripts (Such as Acts 20:28) or verses which can be validly translated in a non-Trinitarian manner (Such as Hebrews 1:8). Except, he says, John 1:1."
"This is interesting because in one of his discussions of John 1:1, he says that "god" in 1:1c points to qualities and attributes, and not an identity. Also, he seems unaware of the Sahidic John 1:1."
I want to give credit to the following blog http://copticjohn.blogspot.com for this amazing piece of information.
Erroneous Eisegesis
For example, it is claimed that the indefinite ou.noute of Coptic John 1:1c should be translated as 'the one and only God,' because the indefinite article denotes unity, not 'a god.' As a "proof," 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 are quoted, where ou.noute n.ouwt is usually rendered as "one God."
But that is erroneous eisegesis. It is a blatant attempt to read philosophical dogma into Coptic grammar. The Coptic indefinite article ou does not of itself 'denote unity.' It simply means "a" when bound with a common or count Coptic noun like noute, "god." The Coptic text of the New Testament contains hundreds of examples that prove this. (For example, see Coptic Acts 28:6, where the anarthrous Greek theos is rendered by ou.noute in Sahidic (Sahidica) and ou.nouti in the Coptic Bohairic version. Horner and Greek-based English versions including the KJV render this as "a god.")
Further, it is not the Coptic indefinite article ou that means "one," but the bound idiom ou______n.ouwt. This idiom literally means "a single, an only," and is used in Coptic to denote "one," adjectivally: "one god," "one man," "one spirit," etc. (For example, see Coptic Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 17)
Therefore, ou.noute n.ouwt simply means "one god." It is the context, not the grammar, of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 that mandates the translation "one God" because the specific and definite reference in those verses is p.eiwt, "the Father," whom the Lord Jesus identifies as p.noute m.me m.mauaa.F , "the true God alone" (John 17:3 Horner), "the only true God."
Neither the grammar nor meaning of Coptic 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Ephesians 4:6 is the same as Coptic John 1:1c, so those verses cannot be used to exegete Coptic John 1:1c. Whereas ou.noute n.ouwt means a single god, i.e, "one god" or "one God" (in context, with reference to the Father), the fact remains that ou.noute means "a god." It does not mean some philosophical unity that calls for translating it as 'the one and only God.'
It would be far more honest to read Coptic John 1:1c for what it says, instead of trying to import foreign concepts into it.
And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely not, "the Word was God."
The distinguished grammarian and Coptic scholar John Martin Plumley, former professor of Egyptology at Cambridge University and author of Introductory Coptic Grammar, (London: Home & Van Thal, 1948), had this to say about the significance of the Sahidic Coptic version:
"While there are limitations to the use which can be made of the Coptic version as an aid to the recovery of the original Greek text of the New Testament . . . it should also be recognized that by and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine." -- Quoted in The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Daniel Wallace, The Anchor Bible, Bruce Metzger, and John Plumley and the Sahidic Coptic text. These are hardly people who are hostile to Christianity.
It is clear that the Coptic Christian Church does not want this evidence to see the light of day. However, it has seen the light of day.
So to those tri-theist who worship three gods under the cloak of monotheism let this be a reminder to you.
GAME ON....
"Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you know better." (Holy Qur'an chapter 2:42)
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Jews, Muslims continue volunteer tradition on Christmas
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Jews, Muslims continue volunteer tradition on Christmas
Mich. Jews, Muslims continue volunteer tradition - chicagotribune.com
This year, the volunteer effort is being modified to accommodate Jews' and Muslims' own holy days.
The event traditionally known as Mitzvah Day was being held Friday across southeast Michigan, since Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath.
About 50 Muslims were joining several hundred Jews at sites serving food to the homeless, sorting used books for a sale to benefit literacy education and taking the elderly to a Christmas Eve service.
The interfaith sites concluded by noon to accommodate Muslims' Friday prayers, and other sites were scheduled to wrap up by 3 p.m. to avoid any conflict with the Jewish Sabbath, which begins at sundown.
Observant Jews don't work from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.
A few hundred Muslims are filling the gap Saturday, providing meals for seniors and toys for needy children at a Detroit center.
Victor Begg, who leads the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, said the creative scheduling allows Muslims to help both Christians and Jews.
"We didn't want to lose the spirit," Begg said of the cooperation between the area's historically large Muslim and Jewish populations. "It's a dual purpose as far as we're concerned: Serving the people and . . . building relationships."
The service includes working together at Oak Park's Congregation Beth Shalom, which is housing the homeless this week. It's part of an ongoing hospitality program for suburban Detroit homeless people run by religious institutions.
The Islamic council and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit, which has sponsored Mitzvah Day for 20 years, used last year's successful collaboration as a springboard to last month's Interfaith Health Fair, in which Muslim and Jewish doctors offered free medical screenings for Detroit's working poor.
The annual Christmastime volunteer effort is part of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit's Mitzvah Month, which seeks to log 1,800 hours of community service during December.
Mitzvah means "commandment" in Hebrew and is generally translated as a good deed.
Robert Cohen, executive director of the Jewish council, said he's heartened by the continuing efforts with the Muslim community, particularly when followers of the two faiths often find themselves at odds over the Arab-Israeli conflict and other issues.
"We're not going to solve the Middle East conflict here," he said. "We need to do what we can to promote peace and harmony in our communities.
"These kinds of projects move us in that direction. We reinforce the values we share -- for charity and repairing the world," he said.
You may also be interested in: "Jews and Muslims pray together in Safi Morocco" http://www.acommonword.net/2010/02/jews-and-muslims-pray-together-in-safi.html
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Jews, Muslims continue volunteer tradition on Christmas
Mich. Jews, Muslims continue volunteer tradition - chicagotribune.com
DETROIT —
Jews and Muslims in the Detroit area united last Christmas Day to serve the community while Christian neighbors celebrated their holiday.This year, the volunteer effort is being modified to accommodate Jews' and Muslims' own holy days.
The event traditionally known as Mitzvah Day was being held Friday across southeast Michigan, since Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath.
About 50 Muslims were joining several hundred Jews at sites serving food to the homeless, sorting used books for a sale to benefit literacy education and taking the elderly to a Christmas Eve service.
The interfaith sites concluded by noon to accommodate Muslims' Friday prayers, and other sites were scheduled to wrap up by 3 p.m. to avoid any conflict with the Jewish Sabbath, which begins at sundown.
Observant Jews don't work from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.
A few hundred Muslims are filling the gap Saturday, providing meals for seniors and toys for needy children at a Detroit center.
Victor Begg, who leads the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, said the creative scheduling allows Muslims to help both Christians and Jews.
"We didn't want to lose the spirit," Begg said of the cooperation between the area's historically large Muslim and Jewish populations. "It's a dual purpose as far as we're concerned: Serving the people and . . . building relationships."
The service includes working together at Oak Park's Congregation Beth Shalom, which is housing the homeless this week. It's part of an ongoing hospitality program for suburban Detroit homeless people run by religious institutions.
The Islamic council and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit, which has sponsored Mitzvah Day for 20 years, used last year's successful collaboration as a springboard to last month's Interfaith Health Fair, in which Muslim and Jewish doctors offered free medical screenings for Detroit's working poor.
The annual Christmastime volunteer effort is part of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit's Mitzvah Month, which seeks to log 1,800 hours of community service during December.
Mitzvah means "commandment" in Hebrew and is generally translated as a good deed.
Robert Cohen, executive director of the Jewish council, said he's heartened by the continuing efforts with the Muslim community, particularly when followers of the two faiths often find themselves at odds over the Arab-Israeli conflict and other issues.
"We're not going to solve the Middle East conflict here," he said. "We need to do what we can to promote peace and harmony in our communities.
"These kinds of projects move us in that direction. We reinforce the values we share -- for charity and repairing the world," he said.
You may also be interested in: "Jews and Muslims pray together in Safi Morocco" http://www.acommonword.net/2010/02/jews-and-muslims-pray-together-in-safi.html
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Shocking Origins of Christmas!!!
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all)
The Shocking Origins of Christmas!!!
The Shocking Origins of Christmas!!!
This blog considers the dark origins of the Christian religions most cherished holiday namely Christ-mas.
Allot of Christians are not aware that December 25th is no where in the Bible nor is there any encouragement to celebrate December 25th as Jesus birthday.
Most Christians are not even aware that Orthrodox Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on January 7th and not December 25th as is the most popular choice.
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN AMERICANS THE PURITANS BANNED CHRIST-MAS
Many do not know that the early Christian 'fathers' of America the 'Puritans' also forbade the practice and celebrate of Christ-mas.
Why would the first American Christians do this?
Because they knew the truth. The truth that not a single one of Jesus disciples celebrated Jesus birth day on December 25th. The truth that December 25th or ANY DATE for that matter is no where mentioned in the Bible in connection with Jesus birth. Lastly and more serious of all that in reality December 25th was what the Romans called " Dies Natalis Solis Invicti " The birth day of the unconquered Sun! December 25th was the birthday of the Sun God Mithras. This is also the winter solstice. What does Winter Solstice mean? It occurs around December 21st and every day after this day there is a little more light than the the day before it. To those who worshiped Mithras-the sun god it would seem that the eternal god of light has conquered darkness.
Jesus is reported to have said,
"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS" WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Most people think that the phrase 'merry Christmas' means 'Joy! The Birth of Christ! It could not be further from the truth.
The word "Merry is simple to define. It means to be happy, joyful and/or having a light-heart.
How about the word Christ-mas? By definition, it means "death of Christ".
How about the word Christ-mas? By definition, it means "death of Christ".
All honest truth seeking Christians should read on, however if you are not honest in wanting truth on this matter you might as well stop right here and continue on with your ways.
I have found many Christians who after hearing the factual presentation and truth say 'So What!' and 'Who Cares!' They are obviously not discerning with the spirit and follow their own desires! Allah mentions about such people in the Qur'an when he says,
I have found many Christians who after hearing the factual presentation and truth say 'So What!' and 'Who Cares!' They are obviously not discerning with the spirit and follow their own desires! Allah mentions about such people in the Qur'an when he says,
"When it is said to them: "Follow what God has revealed:" They say: "Never!" we shall follow the ways of our ancestors." What! even though their ancestors were void of wisdom and guidance? The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of knowledge."
(Holy Qur'an 2:170-171)
The word Christmas comes from 'Cristes Maesse", an early English phrase that means "Mass of Christ." It is interesting to note that the word "Mass", as used by the Roman Catholics, has always been rejected by the Protestants such as Lutherans, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and so forth.
The word "Mass" is strictly a Catholic word and so is the word 'Christ MASS'. So as a side note all those Christian denominations that hate on the Catholic Church become Catholic for a day on December 25th! It's the day when all the "wayward daughters" of the Roman church return to their mother," the scarlet harlot"!
Mass from the Latin 'missa' simply means dismissal. So literally merry Christ-mas would mean if literally translated as 'Happy Christ dismissed' you know like when the teacher says 'class dismissed'. So do Christians really want to go around saying, "Jesus dismissed"?
Dismissed means 'removed'. And is this not telling? There is nothing Jesus like or Christian about the whole celebration. A person who was born in a manger, who taught simplicity and humility and love for fellow man. Who taught us a way to live with one another as humanity.
Now all we have in place is a tree, bright lights, festive songs and possibly the BIGGEST MATERIALISTIC HOLIDAY ON EARTH!
Now all we have in place is a tree, bright lights, festive songs and possibly the BIGGEST MATERIALISTIC HOLIDAY ON EARTH!
Now in a religious usage mass means a "death sacrifice." The impact of this fact is horrifying and shocking; for when millions of people are saying , "Merry Christmas", they are literally saying "Happy Be the End of Christ" or "Merry is the Death of Christ". For Muslims to say this is blasphemous even with the best of intentions. The Holy Qur'an asserts in 4:157 Jesus Christ did not die!
So when Santa Claus the fat man in the red suit starts laughing boisterously and he says, "Ho ho ho Merry Christmas!" What could be so funny about the following picture?
Than you place your children in the arms of a man who promises them gifts that he never gives! What false hopes is that?
Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christ Mas! Imagine streets filled with people drinking beer, dancing and cheering with festive lights all around. Than take a good look at this picture to my left? Do you not have any honor or shame? How sick can people be?
This must be one of the most sadistic celebrations of all time! "On page 537 of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says, "In the Christian law, the supreme sacrifice is that of the Mass." It goes on to say, "The supreme act of worship consist of essentially in an offering of a worthy victim to God, the offering made by a proper person, as a priest, the destruction of the victim." The Latin word for victim is "Hostila" from which the word "host" is derived. The Mass, by definition of those who coined the word, is a sacrifice involving a victim. There is no other meaning for the word "Mass" or "Christ-Mass".
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/m/mass,sacrifice_of.html
"When it is said to them: "Follow what God has revealed:" They say: "Never!" we shall follow the ways of our ancestors." What! even though their ancestors were void of wisdom and guidance? The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of knowledge."
(Holy Qur'an 2:170-171)
Now do not get me wrong. This is a great time for friends and family alike to share in the joy of one another. But to claim this day as the birth day of Jesus is simply fallacious.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
#1 Reason Why The Bible Is The Word Of God
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
#1 Reason Why The Bible Is The Word Of God
Drum roll please..........The #1 Reason why the Bible is the word of God is because....
Nasa has a picture of a rock formation from Mars that looks like C3PO!
If this doesn't convince you than you must have a hard heart! Well, I'm sorry but some of the reasons that the evidentialist come up with is rather silly.
Anyway here is wishing you all a very happy holidays.
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
#1 Reason Why The Bible Is The Word Of God
Drum roll please..........The #1 Reason why the Bible is the word of God is because....
Nasa has a picture of a rock formation from Mars that looks like C3PO!
If this doesn't convince you than you must have a hard heart! Well, I'm sorry but some of the reasons that the evidentialist come up with is rather silly.Anyway here is wishing you all a very happy holidays.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Even the so called 'Salafis' do Taqleed!
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Even the so called 'Salafis' do Taqleed!
There is a very blessed youtube channel called Hanafifiqh's Channel here:http://www.youtube.com/user/hanafifiqh
Hanafi madhab stand up! Mash'Allah!
This is a very short video presentation that is jam packed with blessings and goodness.
This is because in our day and age we have people who are trying to tell us that Taqleed is wrong! This is very unfortunate. These people generally when asked what does Taqleed mean will tell you blind following. To follow blindly. Than when asked what Arabic lexicon or dictionary did they concoct this terminology from? Than this is when it gets interesting.
There you go! Think about what the brother said above.
This is the problem with the Pseudo-Salafi today. What if you present your evidence or proof to someone and they are simply not convinced of it? Think about the thousands of videos and presentations about the miracles of science in the Qur'an , the debates with Atheist and Christians.
What happened? Did everyone in the audience become Muslim? Was everyone convinced? Maybe 1 person took Shahadah what about the others?
The problem with the Pseudo-Salafi are those who claim they are upon the method of the first 3 generations of Muslims if manifold.
The first of those problem is that not even all of the Sahabah were on the same level and knowledge of understanding.
Abu Bakr, Ali, Umar, Ibn Umar, Zaid Ibn Thabit, Ayesha,(May Allah be pleased with them all) had tons more knowledge , depth, and insight than the other Sahabah. Many times a Sahabah would turn to them for information and knowledge.
These were people of high emaan and character. As the link to the web site above says:
------Why Follow an Imam?--------
"O you who believe! Follow Allah; follow the Messenger and those of authority (Amr) amongst you." (Surah Al-Nisaa: 59)
"SO, ask the people (having the knowledge) of the Message, if you do not know". (16:43)(21 :7)
The scholars are the heirs of the Prophets." -Prophet Muhammed (saw)
"Do you know all the various laws of Deen? Are you capable of extracting and deriving the laws pertaining to wudhu, salaah, zakaah, etc. directly from the Qur'an and Hadith? Do you know which Hadith has abrogated another? Do you have the ability to reconcile between the various Ahadith which apparently contradict each other? Do you know which verses of the Qur'an are general in their application and which verses are qualified by other texts?"
If not then the following ayah applies "Ask those of knowledge if you do not know." (16:43 & 21:7)
Hence due to not have enough knowledge in these fields we have opted to follow one of those great people who had attained that distinguished mastery in this field, among whom is a Tabiee, Imaam Abu Hanifa (R.A.).
Please sisters and brothers, and earnest truth seekers when you get the chance. Please listen to this insightful discussion by Imam Zaid Shakir on following a madhab. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxVjEYxAumc&feature=related
Here is something to think about...
Allah alone is capable of giving us all guidance. You would agree with it correct? Than how come Allah has not sent down revelation to each of us individually? Why convey his way of life through an angel-which gets filtered through a man (Muhammed saw) which gets filtered through companions, and tabeen etc all the way down to us?
Ponder on it...
What the brother said above was dynamite. Many times when I am dealing with those who say oh I follow the Qur'an and Hadith I don't follow any imam or scholars.
I read to them in Arabic and ask them can you tell me what that says?
"I'm sorry brother I don't know Arabic I rely upon the translation".... Hmmm I see!
So how is that not Taqleed? You trust the translator?
Or for those who know Arabic, brother can you give me off the top of your head one hadith with a complete chain of narration.
"Uhhh.. not off the top of my head but I can go and open up Bukhari"... Hmmm I see! Did it ever occur to you that people like Bukhari and Imam Shafi (May Allah have mercy upon them both) had completed ijazahs in hadith memorization by their sheiks and this was passed on ORALLY?
Next for those who do know something about the sciences of hadeeth.... how do you know the hadith is weak? Well, so and so is in the chain and they were of this sect,or they were not trustworthy...
But as the Sheikh said in the video above.. How do you know that? Did you meet them? Did you have dinner with them? No you didn't. So the only reason it is da'eef is based upon what others have said.
But AL hamdulillah that this particular group within Islam is loosing stream... Sure the free publications and daw'ah pamphlets from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia keep streaming.... trust me we are grateful for that.
However, as people seek and gain knowledge and understanding they will see why the majority of the scholars whom were intellectuals giants of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah belonged to one of the four schools of fiqh.
However, people do their home work and things start to not add up. Why does Bin Baz and Al Abani differ over the prayer? Why do the various Salafi groups differ on Aqidah.
For example to see how "filled with love and unified they really are" I would refer you to the following: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f20/tawheed-al-hakamiyyah-21678/
Question:
Is it possible for you to clarify for me the meaning of Tawheed Al-Haakimiyyah? It seems to me that it is half of Tawheed Al-'Uloohiyyah?! As I have heard that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem - the Shaykh of Ibn Baaz - was from those who taught the people Tawheed Al-Haakimiyyah and then this phrase was rejected by many of the Saudi Salafees and they considered it as a Bid'ah. So is this correct?! Then is it possible for you to refer me to the books, which discuss this side of Tawheed?
Please Note:The name "Saudi Salafees" used in the question by the questioner was referring only to the Jaamees and the Madkhalees
So yes the so called 'Salafi' have divisions on issues of Aqidah. Who and what is a Salafi is also anyone's guess.
For example allot of people would think that Zakir Naik, is among the 'saved sect' but low and behold...Remember Zakir Naik is supposed to be from the 'Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees" however....
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=2538&bookmark=1
"Zakir Naik was invited to the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees conference (I have also seen his photograph in other Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees conference, and they publish this in magazine which I have myself seen). The Jamiyyah is well known to promote him.Everyone knows the Ahle Hadees Youth Association(AHYA), which distributes his tapes,video lectures, CDs etc. The Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees is well known to support Zakir Naik and his followers against the Salafees in Bangalore. Today they are distributing a tape against him for he said something that was against the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees Hind and one of their heads Abdul Hameed Rahmani has attempted to refute him on the same stage. Today they realize what Salafees have been saying from past two years but they are opposing him for just the reason that he said something against the Jamiyyah. Declined to be from the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees Hind."
These people sure have a way with words observe...
"Today, they wish to dilute our call, mix the books of the Ulamaa with the books of hizbiyyeen, qutubiyyeen and those who oppose our ulamaa so as to decieve the common people but to whom Allah guides none can misguide. They used to tell people that Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat are great Islamic Scholars;Bilal Philips, Zafar ul Hasan were projected as 'Scholars'. Today, those who used to say this are shy to repeat this. Allahu Akbar, now they accuse salafees of calling them 'Jaahils' to gain the sympathy of common people as if they were oppressed by the Salafees. Allah will uncover your deceptions Insha Allah, hair by hair, flesh by flesh, bone by bone."
Nice!
The blood lust that some of these people have for fellow Muslims really knows no bounds. If you reject what they call you to (their version of Islam) you will be labeled as a person of bid'ah, a heretic, and outcast. In fact you will find out of all people they direct their ferocity and anger towards Muslims, making the Mosque a very inhospitable environment indeed. Such has been my experience.
The difference between Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah that people like Abdullah Kune, Yahya Snow, Abdullah Al Andalusi and myself follow is this.
The four of us can go into a Mosque and pray side by side, or have one of us lead the other three. I could have my arms to my side in prayer, and the other have their hands folded just under their navel. We would all respect and understand that we are following the Qur'an and the Sunnah according to the hard work and efforts of the erudite experts in that field. We wouldn't be arguing and fighting with each other over who's prayer is more correct or superior than the other.
However, if I was to go to a Mosque that claims to be "one of the many hundred brands and flavors of the so called-salafi" I would have to have my guard up. It's only a matter of time before a very angry and heated discussion breaks out over me moving my finger, or not moving my finger, where I place my hands or arms in the prayer. Rather or not my hands or my knees go first in the full prostration.
I think I would rather be in the first group with Abdullah Kunde, Yahya Snow, Abdullah Al Andalusi and those who follow the traditional Islam. The Islam that the vast majority of Muslims are upon that the intellectual heavy weights of our ummah have been upon.
The Islam that allows for differences of opinion and cherishes academic difference and understanding. Not the cookie cutter (one size fits all) my way or the high way....disagree with me and I'll declare you outside the fold kind of Islam.
I was a part of that Islam once....it's very dry....legalistic only....angry, uptight...bitter...and ultimately...
EMPTY...
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Even the so called 'Salafis' do Taqleed!
There is a very blessed youtube channel called Hanafifiqh's Channel here:http://www.youtube.com/user/hanafifiqh
Hanafi madhab stand up! Mash'Allah!
This is a very short video presentation that is jam packed with blessings and goodness.
This is because in our day and age we have people who are trying to tell us that Taqleed is wrong! This is very unfortunate. These people generally when asked what does Taqleed mean will tell you blind following. To follow blindly. Than when asked what Arabic lexicon or dictionary did they concoct this terminology from? Than this is when it gets interesting.
There you go! Think about what the brother said above.
This is the problem with the Pseudo-Salafi today. What if you present your evidence or proof to someone and they are simply not convinced of it? Think about the thousands of videos and presentations about the miracles of science in the Qur'an , the debates with Atheist and Christians.
What happened? Did everyone in the audience become Muslim? Was everyone convinced? Maybe 1 person took Shahadah what about the others?
The problem with the Pseudo-Salafi are those who claim they are upon the method of the first 3 generations of Muslims if manifold.
The first of those problem is that not even all of the Sahabah were on the same level and knowledge of understanding.
Abu Bakr, Ali, Umar, Ibn Umar, Zaid Ibn Thabit, Ayesha,(May Allah be pleased with them all) had tons more knowledge , depth, and insight than the other Sahabah. Many times a Sahabah would turn to them for information and knowledge.
These were people of high emaan and character. As the link to the web site above says:
------Why Follow an Imam?--------
"O you who believe! Follow Allah; follow the Messenger and those of authority (Amr) amongst you." (Surah Al-Nisaa: 59)
"SO, ask the people (having the knowledge) of the Message, if you do not know". (16:43)(21 :7)
The scholars are the heirs of the Prophets." -Prophet Muhammed (saw)
"Do you know all the various laws of Deen? Are you capable of extracting and deriving the laws pertaining to wudhu, salaah, zakaah, etc. directly from the Qur'an and Hadith? Do you know which Hadith has abrogated another? Do you have the ability to reconcile between the various Ahadith which apparently contradict each other? Do you know which verses of the Qur'an are general in their application and which verses are qualified by other texts?"
If not then the following ayah applies "Ask those of knowledge if you do not know." (16:43 & 21:7)
Hence due to not have enough knowledge in these fields we have opted to follow one of those great people who had attained that distinguished mastery in this field, among whom is a Tabiee, Imaam Abu Hanifa (R.A.).
Please sisters and brothers, and earnest truth seekers when you get the chance. Please listen to this insightful discussion by Imam Zaid Shakir on following a madhab. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxVjEYxAumc&feature=related
Here is something to think about...
Allah alone is capable of giving us all guidance. You would agree with it correct? Than how come Allah has not sent down revelation to each of us individually? Why convey his way of life through an angel-which gets filtered through a man (Muhammed saw) which gets filtered through companions, and tabeen etc all the way down to us?
Ponder on it...
What the brother said above was dynamite. Many times when I am dealing with those who say oh I follow the Qur'an and Hadith I don't follow any imam or scholars.
I read to them in Arabic and ask them can you tell me what that says?
"I'm sorry brother I don't know Arabic I rely upon the translation".... Hmmm I see!
So how is that not Taqleed? You trust the translator?
Or for those who know Arabic, brother can you give me off the top of your head one hadith with a complete chain of narration.
"Uhhh.. not off the top of my head but I can go and open up Bukhari"... Hmmm I see! Did it ever occur to you that people like Bukhari and Imam Shafi (May Allah have mercy upon them both) had completed ijazahs in hadith memorization by their sheiks and this was passed on ORALLY?
Next for those who do know something about the sciences of hadeeth.... how do you know the hadith is weak? Well, so and so is in the chain and they were of this sect,or they were not trustworthy...
But as the Sheikh said in the video above.. How do you know that? Did you meet them? Did you have dinner with them? No you didn't. So the only reason it is da'eef is based upon what others have said.
But AL hamdulillah that this particular group within Islam is loosing stream... Sure the free publications and daw'ah pamphlets from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia keep streaming.... trust me we are grateful for that.
However, as people seek and gain knowledge and understanding they will see why the majority of the scholars whom were intellectuals giants of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah belonged to one of the four schools of fiqh.
However, people do their home work and things start to not add up. Why does Bin Baz and Al Abani differ over the prayer? Why do the various Salafi groups differ on Aqidah.
For example to see how "filled with love and unified they really are" I would refer you to the following: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f20/tawheed-al-hakamiyyah-21678/
What is Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah
by Shaykh Abu Baseer Mustafa Haleemah at-Tartoosee
Question:
Is it possible for you to clarify for me the meaning of Tawheed Al-Haakimiyyah? It seems to me that it is half of Tawheed Al-'Uloohiyyah?! As I have heard that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem - the Shaykh of Ibn Baaz - was from those who taught the people Tawheed Al-Haakimiyyah and then this phrase was rejected by many of the Saudi Salafees and they considered it as a Bid'ah. So is this correct?! Then is it possible for you to refer me to the books, which discuss this side of Tawheed?
Please Note:The name "Saudi Salafees" used in the question by the questioner was referring only to the Jaamees and the Madkhalees
So yes the so called 'Salafi' have divisions on issues of Aqidah. Who and what is a Salafi is also anyone's guess.
For example allot of people would think that Zakir Naik, is among the 'saved sect' but low and behold...Remember Zakir Naik is supposed to be from the 'Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees" however....
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=2538&bookmark=1
"Zakir Naik was invited to the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees conference (I have also seen his photograph in other Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees conference, and they publish this in magazine which I have myself seen). The Jamiyyah is well known to promote him.Everyone knows the Ahle Hadees Youth Association(AHYA), which distributes his tapes,video lectures, CDs etc. The Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees is well known to support Zakir Naik and his followers against the Salafees in Bangalore. Today they are distributing a tape against him for he said something that was against the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees Hind and one of their heads Abdul Hameed Rahmani has attempted to refute him on the same stage. Today they realize what Salafees have been saying from past two years but they are opposing him for just the reason that he said something against the Jamiyyah. Declined to be from the Jamiyyah Ahle Hadees Hind."
These people sure have a way with words observe...
"Today, they wish to dilute our call, mix the books of the Ulamaa with the books of hizbiyyeen, qutubiyyeen and those who oppose our ulamaa so as to decieve the common people but to whom Allah guides none can misguide. They used to tell people that Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat are great Islamic Scholars;Bilal Philips, Zafar ul Hasan were projected as 'Scholars'. Today, those who used to say this are shy to repeat this. Allahu Akbar, now they accuse salafees of calling them 'Jaahils' to gain the sympathy of common people as if they were oppressed by the Salafees. Allah will uncover your deceptions Insha Allah, hair by hair, flesh by flesh, bone by bone."
Nice!
The blood lust that some of these people have for fellow Muslims really knows no bounds. If you reject what they call you to (their version of Islam) you will be labeled as a person of bid'ah, a heretic, and outcast. In fact you will find out of all people they direct their ferocity and anger towards Muslims, making the Mosque a very inhospitable environment indeed. Such has been my experience.
The difference between Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah that people like Abdullah Kune, Yahya Snow, Abdullah Al Andalusi and myself follow is this.
The four of us can go into a Mosque and pray side by side, or have one of us lead the other three. I could have my arms to my side in prayer, and the other have their hands folded just under their navel. We would all respect and understand that we are following the Qur'an and the Sunnah according to the hard work and efforts of the erudite experts in that field. We wouldn't be arguing and fighting with each other over who's prayer is more correct or superior than the other.
However, if I was to go to a Mosque that claims to be "one of the many hundred brands and flavors of the so called-salafi" I would have to have my guard up. It's only a matter of time before a very angry and heated discussion breaks out over me moving my finger, or not moving my finger, where I place my hands or arms in the prayer. Rather or not my hands or my knees go first in the full prostration.
I think I would rather be in the first group with Abdullah Kunde, Yahya Snow, Abdullah Al Andalusi and those who follow the traditional Islam. The Islam that the vast majority of Muslims are upon that the intellectual heavy weights of our ummah have been upon.
The Islam that allows for differences of opinion and cherishes academic difference and understanding. Not the cookie cutter (one size fits all) my way or the high way....disagree with me and I'll declare you outside the fold kind of Islam.
I was a part of that Islam once....it's very dry....legalistic only....angry, uptight...bitter...and ultimately...
EMPTY...
Monday, December 20, 2010
Is Islam compatible with freedom of expression? (Adnan Rashid vs John Joseph and Stuart Windsor)
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May The Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Is Islam compatible with freedom of expression? (Adnan Rashid vs John Joseph and Stuart Windsor)
To save people 59:22 minutes of viewing time the short answer to the question above is No!
The more thought-out answer is that Islam does not allow for unlimited freedom of expression.
To save people 59:22 minutes of viewing time the short answer to the question above is No!
The more thought-out answer is that Islam does not allow for unlimited freedom of expression.
I really do not like titles like the one above because I think it's very pretentious. What it does is try and set up an extreme paradigm or a black and white scenario in which a person is not allowed to think 'outside of the box'. I think my advice to brother Adnan should have been to even challenge the premise of the question itself. It is too generalized and an answer yes or no could easily jeopardize the conversation.
If you say Yes Islam allows for freedom of expression, than this means it allows not only for people to insult the Prophet Muhammed (saw) it would also would allow for people to walk naked openly in public, it would allow another person to approach another human being and grope them, or kiss them.
It would allow a person to defecate or urinate in a public place. It would allow for anyone to draw and scroll graffiti when and where they pleased. It would allow for people to assemble at will and at leisure example: Muslims would be allowed to congregate inside of a church and start chanting 'Allah, Allah, Allah'.
It would allow for Presbyterians to speak up at a Catholic wake (funeral) and yell out...."no sense crying for him he's going to hell for all eternity!"
So I guess the question should have been does Islam put a limit on freedom of expression.
Or a more appropriate question could have been. Do various world views and culture seek to limit freedom of expression and why.
Even you could challenge the concept 'freedom of expression'. Who gave you the freedom to express what ever you want, when ever you want to whom ever you want?
So I think what all respectable and thinking societies seek to do is determine what is appropriate to express and at what places and times.
Many times people concede the premise or the theme of a discussion without challenging the theme or premise to begin with.
For example Islam no where (not in the Qur'an or the Hadith) teach that every human being is equal to another human being. However, come hell or high water since this is a notion that the Liberal among Western Europe and the United States have cherished since the time of the French Revolution than Islam must have it too!
So what happens is that Muslims capitulate much of their world view to another, without trying to approach a subject from a consistent world view.
I really enjoyed the discussion and I found that the Muslim, and both of the Christians were quite charitable. In fact I think if anything it was the Christian on the far right (no pun intended) which started to get a little feisty.
The only point I really cringed at was when brother Adnan Rashid likened a person's choice to blaspheme the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to suicide. I think the analogy can be made, yet that would depend upon the context and if the person was aware.
I guess the biggest problem if I were a liberal Christian (and support secularism which the vast majority of Christians do) or if I was an agnostic, skeptic or atheist I would not be very happy to find out that the line between critiquing the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and blaspheming him seems rather undefined (at least in this particular encounter).
So if I was coming from the other side, Liberal Christian, Agnostic, Atheist-Skeptic I would be rather mortified by the Muslim position for sure.
However, for those people who are not phishing for sound bites but realize that hermeneutic, and interpretation in relation to Islam and Christianity can be vast and diverse; those people would do well to look into the book recommendations by brother Adnan.
Book recommendation No.1
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8529.html
A brief description of the book and some reviews:
There are allot of things that people who have a personal grudge against Islam will likely miss out when watching the exchange above.
1) That Muslim lawyers, and Muslim people more often than not try and represent Christians like the gentleman in the middle and that was a fact not disputed in the video.
2) 35:33 Adnan Rashid (may Allah bless him for saying it because it's true) Pakistan IS A VERY BAD example of Islamic law and how it is practiced. Allot of things in Pakistan are very tribal and are settled based upon tribal loyalties even more so than loyalty to Islam. I hope my sisters and brothers from Pakistan will forgive me as I am not seeking to bash their respected nation.
This example could indeed be extended to the lot of us as Muslims (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Malays) what have you loyalty to ethnicity, tribe, or nation state has indeed poisoned the brotherhood and sisterhood of Al Islam.
At 37:36 minutes I thought the Christian gentleman on the right was again trying to play the card of "the adherents of our religion are less violent and more saintly than yours card"
I have a post on that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/03/christian-muslim-violence-in-nigeria.html
So most of the conflicts in this region are ethnic or tribal based and hey guess what? If they happen to follow a particularly different religion that just adds more salt and pepper to the stir fry and things get really simmering than!
38:08 This was the highlight of the D.J host. In fact I think this particular host does do a fairly good job of being fair minded and balanced. So I like how he reeled the gentleman back in and have them try not to bicker and argue over who's killed who...
40:22 At this point I felt that the D.J host was siding more with the Christian side (which would be expected) in trying to bring in theological points.
I think there are a few questions that would need to be answered if he is to pursue that line of thought. Such as if Jesus prayed, "father forgive them for they know not what they do" this could be argued that people who are ignorant are not to be punished. Therefore it really takes the sails out of modern Evangelism which states that without Christ Jesus as a my Lord and savior I am lost.
What do I mean by this? There are millions of people on this earth that are ignorant of one particular world view, faith or another. Yet many Christians would argue that they are lost forever.
What is the punishment for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Fire....Burning, and Burning and Burning forever and ever and ever...
"Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:15)
In fact we can say that Christians have re-interpreted their text in keeping up with the dominant trend and theme of Liberalism. Why would I say this? Well it seems that the more Christian the society the more proclivity for violence against blasphemy.
Examples:
"All societies are theocratic, and all theocratic societies defend themselves against blasphemers. All societies have a god; they merely differ on which god they have. We enforce blasphemy laws today, just as the magistrates of Geneva did it then. We don't call them blasphemy laws, but rather things like "hate speech," but they remain blasphemy laws."
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1579%3AWas-John-Calvin-An-Intolerista&catid=68%3Amoscow-diversity-cleansing&Itemid=172
At 42:50 minutes into the discussion the Christian gentleman on the right was trying to rebut the claim advanced by brother Adnan that Christians should pay taxes and be loyal subjects of the particular government they are living under.
However, the Christian is inconsistent and leaves his position open to much scrutiny. So does this mean that when Christians find a government opposed to God's laws they should oppose it? Should they be in a state of rebellion? I would personally like to know more about this because as a Muslim I would find it fascinating. I believe that Christians already have such views but they keep it under wraps for the most part. Dominionist and Theonomist are more open in this regards.
44:20 the Christian on the right gives the Pakistani Christian gentleman a sort of 'nudge'. I don't know what that was all about but I found it noteworthy.
47:35 BEAUTIFUL! The fact that this example is coming from a Pakistani Christian who is telling the truth about Muhammed (saw). If only the Christians in the west would stop being so polemical and spiteful and recognize events like this in the life of Muhammed (saw) what a better world this would be. Instead most Christians in the west (700 Club, Jack Van Impe, Fox News , TBN, ) use the suffering of other Christians as political talking points, not because they actually give a damn about their Christian brethren. I find this extremely distasteful.
However, hats off to the Christian gentleman who gave the beautiful example from Nabi Kareem (saw).
49:06 I think the D.J host again was stepping outside of the bounds of partiality. Because the truth of the matter there are places where various Christian sects or groups would brutalize Muslims and rival Christian groups for saying and/or doing the wrong things. Only some one who lives in a plastic bubble would deny this.
I like the conclusion. I think the Christian Pakistani in the middle sort of gets dragged in the middle of this so called "clash of civilization" war. It's rather sad because he seems the kind of person who would be content to live under Islamic governance provided he could worship the Lord Jesus Christ, carry on his life as a Christian and be able to share the gospel.
On the the last point 'sharing the gospel' I think it would have been more helpful for the liberal Christians (who advocate secularism) to have pushed the issue of apostasy laws in Islam.
I think it helps the cause of liberal Christianity (which is against dominion theology and theonomy) and of skeptics and atheist to ask something along these lines:
"In an Islamic governing state or system of Khilafa, could a person freely leave Islam for unbelief or another religion without reprisal from the state?" This would have been appropriate for the freedom of expression question.
Than a follow up question could be, "Could you give us any examples in which Islamic law was dominant or there was a Khilafa in which people who proclaimed Islam renounced it and were left unscathed?"
Over all this is my brief summary. I hope all of you give it a watch and take notes. I think that Adnan Rashid gave a very good book recommendation. If and when part-2 is done I will make sure to publish it.
May Allah forgive me for any of my wrongs, all the good you receive from me the credit is due to the Lord of all the worlds (Allah s.w.t). Only the mistakes are mine.
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May The Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)
Is Islam compatible with freedom of expression? (Adnan Rashid vs John Joseph and Stuart Windsor)
To save people 59:22 minutes of viewing time the short answer to the question above is No!
The more thought-out answer is that Islam does not allow for unlimited freedom of expression.
To save people 59:22 minutes of viewing time the short answer to the question above is No!
The more thought-out answer is that Islam does not allow for unlimited freedom of expression.
I really do not like titles like the one above because I think it's very pretentious. What it does is try and set up an extreme paradigm or a black and white scenario in which a person is not allowed to think 'outside of the box'. I think my advice to brother Adnan should have been to even challenge the premise of the question itself. It is too generalized and an answer yes or no could easily jeopardize the conversation.
If you say Yes Islam allows for freedom of expression, than this means it allows not only for people to insult the Prophet Muhammed (saw) it would also would allow for people to walk naked openly in public, it would allow another person to approach another human being and grope them, or kiss them.
It would allow a person to defecate or urinate in a public place. It would allow for anyone to draw and scroll graffiti when and where they pleased. It would allow for people to assemble at will and at leisure example: Muslims would be allowed to congregate inside of a church and start chanting 'Allah, Allah, Allah'.
It would allow for Presbyterians to speak up at a Catholic wake (funeral) and yell out...."no sense crying for him he's going to hell for all eternity!"
So I guess the question should have been does Islam put a limit on freedom of expression.
Or a more appropriate question could have been. Do various world views and culture seek to limit freedom of expression and why.
Even you could challenge the concept 'freedom of expression'. Who gave you the freedom to express what ever you want, when ever you want to whom ever you want?
So I think what all respectable and thinking societies seek to do is determine what is appropriate to express and at what places and times.
Many times people concede the premise or the theme of a discussion without challenging the theme or premise to begin with.
For example Islam no where (not in the Qur'an or the Hadith) teach that every human being is equal to another human being. However, come hell or high water since this is a notion that the Liberal among Western Europe and the United States have cherished since the time of the French Revolution than Islam must have it too!
So what happens is that Muslims capitulate much of their world view to another, without trying to approach a subject from a consistent world view.
I really enjoyed the discussion and I found that the Muslim, and both of the Christians were quite charitable. In fact I think if anything it was the Christian on the far right (no pun intended) which started to get a little feisty.
The only point I really cringed at was when brother Adnan Rashid likened a person's choice to blaspheme the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to suicide. I think the analogy can be made, yet that would depend upon the context and if the person was aware.
I guess the biggest problem if I were a liberal Christian (and support secularism which the vast majority of Christians do) or if I was an agnostic, skeptic or atheist I would not be very happy to find out that the line between critiquing the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and blaspheming him seems rather undefined (at least in this particular encounter).
So if I was coming from the other side, Liberal Christian, Agnostic, Atheist-Skeptic I would be rather mortified by the Muslim position for sure.
However, for those people who are not phishing for sound bites but realize that hermeneutic, and interpretation in relation to Islam and Christianity can be vast and diverse; those people would do well to look into the book recommendations by brother Adnan.
Book recommendation No.1
The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: |
A brief description of the book and some reviews:
Amid so much twenty-first-century talk of a "Christian-Muslim divide"--and the attendant controversy in some Western countries over policies toward minority Muslim communities--a historical fact has gone unnoticed: for more than four hundred years beginning in the mid-seventh century, some 50 percent of the world's Christians lived and worshipped under Muslim rule. Just who were the Christians in the Arabic-speaking milieu of Mohammed and the Qur'an?
The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque is the first book-length discussion in English of the cultural and intellectual life of such Christians indigenous to the Islamic world. Sidney Griffith offers an engaging overview of their initial reactions to the religious challenges they faced, the development of a new mode of presenting Christian doctrine as liturgical texts in their own languages gave way to Arabic, the Christian role in the philosophical life of early Baghdad, and the maturing of distinctive Oriental Christian denominations in this context.
Offering a fuller understanding of the rise of Islam in its early years from the perspective of contemporary non-Muslims, this book reminds us that there is much to learn from the works of people who seriously engaged Muslims in their own world so long ago.
em>Sidney H. Griffith is a professor at the Catholic University of America, where he teaches Syriac and Christian Arabic.
"The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque makes a contribution to the understanding of relations between Christians and Muslims that is both necessary and enriching. Its author, Sidney Griffith, has almost unparalleled knowledge of his subject, and brings together here the fruit of decades of painstaking work in Syriac and Arabic to piece together a history that gives color to Christian-Muslim relations, and illuminates many of the points of controversy between the faiths by situating them in a historical context."--David Thomas, Middle East Journal
"This splendid book provides a revelatory account of those Christians--and they were legion--who lived under Islamic rule between the time of Mohammed and the Mongol conquests in the Near East during the 13th century....Through a close reading of the texts they produced, Griffith explores the unique theological and ecclesiological visions fashioned by these often unsung Christians."--Jonathan Wright, Catholic Herald
"This is a wonderfully written and important book--so much so that immediately after reading it, I started recommending it to students in two courses on 'Eastern Christianity and the Encounter with Islam' that I am teaching currently. From Griffith we should expect nothing less than such a masterful treatment for he has spent the last thirty years researching Muslim-Christian relations, research he displays here with elegance and cogency--and in a thirty-page bibliography, which is most useful."--Adam A. J. DeVille, LOGOS: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies
"Sidney Griffith's work is a milestone in the field of classical Christian-Arabic studies. It provides specialists in the field as well as the general reader with wide-ranging information, precious insights and judicious assessments."--Christian Troll, The Tablet
There are allot of things that people who have a personal grudge against Islam will likely miss out when watching the exchange above.
1) That Muslim lawyers, and Muslim people more often than not try and represent Christians like the gentleman in the middle and that was a fact not disputed in the video.
2) 35:33 Adnan Rashid (may Allah bless him for saying it because it's true) Pakistan IS A VERY BAD example of Islamic law and how it is practiced. Allot of things in Pakistan are very tribal and are settled based upon tribal loyalties even more so than loyalty to Islam. I hope my sisters and brothers from Pakistan will forgive me as I am not seeking to bash their respected nation.
This example could indeed be extended to the lot of us as Muslims (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Malays) what have you loyalty to ethnicity, tribe, or nation state has indeed poisoned the brotherhood and sisterhood of Al Islam.
At 37:36 minutes I thought the Christian gentleman on the right was again trying to play the card of "the adherents of our religion are less violent and more saintly than yours card"
I have a post on that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/03/christian-muslim-violence-in-nigeria.html
So most of the conflicts in this region are ethnic or tribal based and hey guess what? If they happen to follow a particularly different religion that just adds more salt and pepper to the stir fry and things get really simmering than!
38:08 This was the highlight of the D.J host. In fact I think this particular host does do a fairly good job of being fair minded and balanced. So I like how he reeled the gentleman back in and have them try not to bicker and argue over who's killed who...
40:22 At this point I felt that the D.J host was siding more with the Christian side (which would be expected) in trying to bring in theological points.
I think there are a few questions that would need to be answered if he is to pursue that line of thought. Such as if Jesus prayed, "father forgive them for they know not what they do" this could be argued that people who are ignorant are not to be punished. Therefore it really takes the sails out of modern Evangelism which states that without Christ Jesus as a my Lord and savior I am lost.
What do I mean by this? There are millions of people on this earth that are ignorant of one particular world view, faith or another. Yet many Christians would argue that they are lost forever.
Matthew 12:31–32 (NIV)
31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this ...
"Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:15)
In fact we can say that Christians have re-interpreted their text in keeping up with the dominant trend and theme of Liberalism. Why would I say this? Well it seems that the more Christian the society the more proclivity for violence against blasphemy.
Examples:
Excerpt from manuscript by Charles A. Weisman
BLASPHEMY:
The history of laws involving blasphemy in America reveals the intense desire of its Christian inhabitants to preserve, protect, and defend the sanctity of their faith, their Bible, and their God. One definition of blasphemy is:
To curse God means to scoff at God; to use profanely insolent and reproachful language against him. This is one form of blasphemy under the authority of standard lexicographers. To contumeliously reproach God, His Creation, government, final judgment of the world, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Scriptures, is to charge Him or Them with fault, to rebuke, to censure, to upbraid, doing the same with scornful insolence, with contemptuousness in act or speech. This is another form of blasphemy (32)
Blasphemy was made a criminal act in every single colony in America with punishments that varied from fines to the death penalty. The bible was most often the subject of such legislation. In Massachusetts the General Court had enacted a law titled, "An Act Against Atheisme and Blasphemie," under its Province Laws of 1697 which declared:
In fact here is an interesting read by a person who debated Atheist Dan Barker and defends Calvin's burning of Michael Servetus for blasphemy."That if any person shall presume willfully to blaspheme the holy name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost, either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God, his creation, or government of the world; or by denying, cursing or reproaching the Holy Word of God, that is the canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments; names, Genesis, Exodus,. . . Jude, Revelation; every one so offending shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding six months and until the find sureties for the good behavior by setting in the pillory, by whipping, boreing through the tongue with a red hot iron, or setting upon the gallows with a rope about his neck."(33)
http://christsassembly.com/literature/blasphemy.htm
"All societies are theocratic, and all theocratic societies defend themselves against blasphemers. All societies have a god; they merely differ on which god they have. We enforce blasphemy laws today, just as the magistrates of Geneva did it then. We don't call them blasphemy laws, but rather things like "hate speech," but they remain blasphemy laws."
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1579%3AWas-John-Calvin-An-Intolerista&catid=68%3Amoscow-diversity-cleansing&Itemid=172
At 42:50 minutes into the discussion the Christian gentleman on the right was trying to rebut the claim advanced by brother Adnan that Christians should pay taxes and be loyal subjects of the particular government they are living under.
However, the Christian is inconsistent and leaves his position open to much scrutiny. So does this mean that when Christians find a government opposed to God's laws they should oppose it? Should they be in a state of rebellion? I would personally like to know more about this because as a Muslim I would find it fascinating. I believe that Christians already have such views but they keep it under wraps for the most part. Dominionist and Theonomist are more open in this regards.
44:20 the Christian on the right gives the Pakistani Christian gentleman a sort of 'nudge'. I don't know what that was all about but I found it noteworthy.
47:35 BEAUTIFUL! The fact that this example is coming from a Pakistani Christian who is telling the truth about Muhammed (saw). If only the Christians in the west would stop being so polemical and spiteful and recognize events like this in the life of Muhammed (saw) what a better world this would be. Instead most Christians in the west (700 Club, Jack Van Impe, Fox News , TBN, ) use the suffering of other Christians as political talking points, not because they actually give a damn about their Christian brethren. I find this extremely distasteful.
However, hats off to the Christian gentleman who gave the beautiful example from Nabi Kareem (saw).
49:06 I think the D.J host again was stepping outside of the bounds of partiality. Because the truth of the matter there are places where various Christian sects or groups would brutalize Muslims and rival Christian groups for saying and/or doing the wrong things. Only some one who lives in a plastic bubble would deny this.
I like the conclusion. I think the Christian Pakistani in the middle sort of gets dragged in the middle of this so called "clash of civilization" war. It's rather sad because he seems the kind of person who would be content to live under Islamic governance provided he could worship the Lord Jesus Christ, carry on his life as a Christian and be able to share the gospel.
On the the last point 'sharing the gospel' I think it would have been more helpful for the liberal Christians (who advocate secularism) to have pushed the issue of apostasy laws in Islam.
I think it helps the cause of liberal Christianity (which is against dominion theology and theonomy) and of skeptics and atheist to ask something along these lines:
"In an Islamic governing state or system of Khilafa, could a person freely leave Islam for unbelief or another religion without reprisal from the state?" This would have been appropriate for the freedom of expression question.
Than a follow up question could be, "Could you give us any examples in which Islamic law was dominant or there was a Khilafa in which people who proclaimed Islam renounced it and were left unscathed?"
Over all this is my brief summary. I hope all of you give it a watch and take notes. I think that Adnan Rashid gave a very good book recommendation. If and when part-2 is done I will make sure to publish it.
May Allah forgive me for any of my wrongs, all the good you receive from me the credit is due to the Lord of all the worlds (Allah s.w.t). Only the mistakes are mine.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Personal Salvation: James White Stumped On Dividing Line
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wrwb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).
Personal Salvation: James White Stumped On Dividing Line...again
Folks this is getting really sad. One of Reformed Baptist leading apologist who spends hours in preperation for debates with us Muslims, Roman Catholics, Presbyterian Pedobaptist, and Southern Baptist is stumped once again on a simple question of salvation.
The first time he was stumped on the dividing line had to do with the issue of 'infallible salvation'. You can see that here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/infallible-salvation-james-white.html
(For those who can't access these dividing lines do let me know. I have a tendency to download and save to c.d as White is known to have some technical difficulties from time to time)...
So now the second time White is stumped is on the issue of salvation again! A man calls in and ask how I (myself) or you (the believer) can have objective assurance of salvation THAT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE (I know I am saved because I can just feel Jesus love oozing out of me kind of stuff).
The link to White's latest debacle is here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4341 You know I would find this absolutely hilarious, jaw dropping, knee jerking comedy if it wasn't for the fact that this is SO SAD.
A man who has participated in tons of debates with Mormons, Roman Catholics, Pedobaptist Presbyterians, Arminian Baptist, and Muslims really fumbles when it comes to questions on salvation.
Maybe there is some truth to the Arminian claim that once a person joins the Calvinist camp of Christianity the fire and evangelical element takes a nose dive. Sure they can argue and all, but it just seems that this 'Salvation' issue is a bit sticky for them. Any way enough on the intra-Christian strife on this issue.
Markus from Virginia calls up James White and poses a question above at 33:29 minutes into the "Skype Only" Diving Line.
Markus " Hey Duck I had a question for ya on assurance of salvation."
White "mmm hmmm"
Markus "and and the question we've been shooting around in our evangelism team is what um objective basis does the believer have in his assurance of salvation that is not based upon subjective experience like uh his current state of uh uh sanctification and stuff like that."
White (smacking lips San Fransisco style) "Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ. That's that's the objective element is the promises of God. The subjective element has to do with the nature of your own faith. Uhmm but that's that's really a massively important distinction to uh to be made. Is that there are there is an objective foundation for a a belief in the assurance of salvation. So we might need we might need to define the terms were talking about here. Are we talking about assurance of salvation in the sense that there is a biblical teaching that the person that is in Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life under the glory of the triune God. Or are we talking about the much more personalized version of that and that is how do I myself know ummm how do I have a a uhh certainty of my relationship with Christ.
And that is of course a different issue in the sense that it is experiential it is a result of uh sanctification it is the result of uh growing in grace you look at 1st John and ya know it goes to the end of the book and he says these things I have written so you may know that you have eternal life. What are these things. Well, everything that came before that. And so a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession. (ahh the confident throat clear! Classic White! -that probably was enough rattling to answer Marcus)....
"These are all the things that John lays out for us as evidences uh by which we know that we have eternal life, but that kind of assurance out outside of the reality of the objective reality of the promises of God my personal assurance is something that should naturally uh increase with my sanctification in my walking with Christ. I mean a person who has walked with Christ and seen the work of the spirit the fulfillment of the promises of God over decades of that person's life. Seen the faithfulness of God over and over and over again uh cannot help but grow in the assurance in the reality of the promises of God. Now that's not to say that the brand new believer cannot have uhh eh a certain level of assurance. But it it its it itssa an oddity of modern evangelicalism that we actually get to the position of believing well the new believer uhh ya know possesses the holy spirit so he has everything that he needs. Well that's true BUT...the role of the holy spirit in the person's life is that of sanctification and forming them in the image of Christ and and anybody who thinks they have arrived at that point is is just self deceived." I mean anybody who could look at their lives and go oh yeah I'm just like Jesus I respond to everything in life just like Jesus uhh um Wow! uhh I've not met those folks. And as soon (laughing) and the few that I've met that did say it as soon as I questioned them did not respond like Jesus for some odd reason. I'm not sure how that worked but anyhow uhh so it it's important to make the distinctions that sound theologians have down over the years as to uh thee thee grounds of our assurance and the the objective element of our our assurance, but than the reality that as we walk with Christ there is a growing subjective nature that is based upon the observation of the fulfilled promises of God over and over and over again in our lives"
Markus "That that sounds good thanks for that man..."
White "Alright I appreciate it"
Comments: You got to be kidding me! So James White's strategy is obvious in these situations. Ramble on and on for five minutes and overwhelm a person with rhetoric so it looks as if you answered their question. I know this is a question that is personally itching away at James White theologically. Trust me people there are more reasons than you know why James White is seriously looking into Islam. May Allah open his heart.
Notice that the man asked a very straight forward question. Markus "what um objective basis does the believer have in his assurance of salvation that is not based upon subjective experience"
James White replies, "Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ"
However, he will come back and contradict this very assertion just a paragraph (2 minutes) latter. First James White tries his hand at obfuscation pretending to answer a different question. The man's question was straight forward. Finally James comes to it when he says, "Or are we talking about the much more personalized version of that and that is how do I myself know ummm how do I have a a uhh certainty of my relationship with Christ."
That is exactly what the man wants to know James! However, to be more precise he wants to know how can he know this in a way that is objective.
If we say well the objective reason is "that the person that is IN Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life." However, that is begging the question is it not? How does one know they are 'IN' Christ Jesus in a way that is objective and not subjective.
White is dancing around the question.
Notice that White contradicts himself. He says,
"Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ"
However, look what James says here,
And so "a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession."
This is the same route that James McArthur took in his book 'Saved without a Doubt" and you can see where he dropped the ball here: http://www.acommonword.net/2009/12/christian-evangelist-john-macarthur-ask.html
Just like James McArthur; White is telling us to take a look in the mirror and ask the following.
1) Do I love my brethern. Yes I do! Check I am saved.
2) Do I seek to walk in the light and not the darkness. Yes of course! Check I am saved.
3) Do I believe that Jesus is the Christ. Duh! Of Course! Check I am saved.
4) Is my doctrine solid. Well according to myself yes! Check again I am saved. Woo hoo!
Muslims do you want to give your life to Jesus Christ for a 'certain level of assurance' ????
James White, "Now that's not to say that the brand new believer cannot have uhh eh a certain level of assurance."
I give a ticket to the lady at the stand, "Yes ma'am this air plane is 89% certain to get you where you need to go."
You have an 89% chance that you are indeed saved. Wow! Christianity sure has down graded from the days of 100% assurance of salvation. Times are a changing folks.
The following is nit picking; however since White likes to style himself as a perfectionist I thought this was note worthy. See if you can spot the contradiction in the following paragraph from White. (Helpful hint it's in red)
I mean anybody who could look at their lives and go oh yeah I'm just like Jesus I respond to everything in life just like Jesus uhh um Wow! uhh I've not met those folks. And as soon (laughing) and the few that I've met that did say it as soon as I questioned them did not respond like Jesus for some odd reason.
James White presupossitional apologetic to the rescue!
"the objective element of our our assurance"
How do I know what that objective element is?
"that the person that is IN Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life"
How do I know that I am IN Jesus Christ?
"a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession"
Summary: Your assurance of salvation is SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE.
Hence the need for certain Christian groups to give outward manifestations that they are saved "Snake handling, drinking poison, laying on of hands, flopping around on church floors etc"
It's no surprise that the Holiness/Pentacostal/Charismatic churches grew out of Wesleyan Methodist movements.
Of course there are other factors that White didn't want to mention. Factors that the Calvinist are very *hush* *hush* about.
So Markus and other sincere Christians who are out there troubled by these issues. You are most welcome to read the following link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/why-do-reformed-christians-believe-god_18.html
Don't worry folks I'll do my best to answer the questions that White flunks out on. I get the feeling that not only are the callers feeling a bit cheated and let down even Richard Pierce who runs the studio with White more than likely gets a little tired of White's 'self centered' approach. Some how I get the feeling that Richard isn't really appreciated for his work in the studio. Who knows?
I mean I never met Pierce in person but it doesn't take a rocket scientist when you listen to the dividing line to realize that White really does not appreciate him. How self centered and uncaring can a person be?
What does it say about a religion or a faith for that matter that talks about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but they fail in their own personal relationships with one another as human beings?
White might as well have a button, a hat, and a t -shirt that simply says "ME" on it. As I warned White a few months ago if he doesn't start appreciating those who actually do look up to him and support him (such a Pierce) he may find in the future that not only are his bike rides solitary...all other ventures maybe solitary too.
As salamu 'alikum wrwb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).
Personal Salvation: James White Stumped On Dividing Line...again
Folks this is getting really sad. One of Reformed Baptist leading apologist who spends hours in preperation for debates with us Muslims, Roman Catholics, Presbyterian Pedobaptist, and Southern Baptist is stumped once again on a simple question of salvation.
The first time he was stumped on the dividing line had to do with the issue of 'infallible salvation'. You can see that here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/infallible-salvation-james-white.html
(For those who can't access these dividing lines do let me know. I have a tendency to download and save to c.d as White is known to have some technical difficulties from time to time)...
So now the second time White is stumped is on the issue of salvation again! A man calls in and ask how I (myself) or you (the believer) can have objective assurance of salvation THAT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE (I know I am saved because I can just feel Jesus love oozing out of me kind of stuff).
The link to White's latest debacle is here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4341 You know I would find this absolutely hilarious, jaw dropping, knee jerking comedy if it wasn't for the fact that this is SO SAD.
A man who has participated in tons of debates with Mormons, Roman Catholics, Pedobaptist Presbyterians, Arminian Baptist, and Muslims really fumbles when it comes to questions on salvation.
Maybe there is some truth to the Arminian claim that once a person joins the Calvinist camp of Christianity the fire and evangelical element takes a nose dive. Sure they can argue and all, but it just seems that this 'Salvation' issue is a bit sticky for them. Any way enough on the intra-Christian strife on this issue.
Markus from Virginia calls up James White and poses a question above at 33:29 minutes into the "Skype Only" Diving Line.
Markus " Hey Duck I had a question for ya on assurance of salvation."
White "mmm hmmm"
Markus "and and the question we've been shooting around in our evangelism team is what um objective basis does the believer have in his assurance of salvation that is not based upon subjective experience like uh his current state of uh uh sanctification and stuff like that."
White (smacking lips San Fransisco style) "Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ. That's that's the objective element is the promises of God. The subjective element has to do with the nature of your own faith. Uhmm but that's that's really a massively important distinction to uh to be made. Is that there are there is an objective foundation for a a belief in the assurance of salvation. So we might need we might need to define the terms were talking about here. Are we talking about assurance of salvation in the sense that there is a biblical teaching that the person that is in Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life under the glory of the triune God. Or are we talking about the much more personalized version of that and that is how do I myself know ummm how do I have a a uhh certainty of my relationship with Christ.
And that is of course a different issue in the sense that it is experiential it is a result of uh sanctification it is the result of uh growing in grace you look at 1st John and ya know it goes to the end of the book and he says these things I have written so you may know that you have eternal life. What are these things. Well, everything that came before that. And so a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession. (ahh the confident throat clear! Classic White! -that probably was enough rattling to answer Marcus)....
"These are all the things that John lays out for us as evidences uh by which we know that we have eternal life, but that kind of assurance out outside of the reality of the objective reality of the promises of God my personal assurance is something that should naturally uh increase with my sanctification in my walking with Christ. I mean a person who has walked with Christ and seen the work of the spirit the fulfillment of the promises of God over decades of that person's life. Seen the faithfulness of God over and over and over again uh cannot help but grow in the assurance in the reality of the promises of God. Now that's not to say that the brand new believer cannot have uhh eh a certain level of assurance. But it it its it itssa an oddity of modern evangelicalism that we actually get to the position of believing well the new believer uhh ya know possesses the holy spirit so he has everything that he needs. Well that's true BUT...the role of the holy spirit in the person's life is that of sanctification and forming them in the image of Christ and and anybody who thinks they have arrived at that point is is just self deceived." I mean anybody who could look at their lives and go oh yeah I'm just like Jesus I respond to everything in life just like Jesus uhh um Wow! uhh I've not met those folks. And as soon (laughing) and the few that I've met that did say it as soon as I questioned them did not respond like Jesus for some odd reason. I'm not sure how that worked but anyhow uhh so it it's important to make the distinctions that sound theologians have down over the years as to uh thee thee grounds of our assurance and the the objective element of our our assurance, but than the reality that as we walk with Christ there is a growing subjective nature that is based upon the observation of the fulfilled promises of God over and over and over again in our lives"
Markus "That that sounds good thanks for that man..."
White "Alright I appreciate it"
Comments: You got to be kidding me! So James White's strategy is obvious in these situations. Ramble on and on for five minutes and overwhelm a person with rhetoric so it looks as if you answered their question. I know this is a question that is personally itching away at James White theologically. Trust me people there are more reasons than you know why James White is seriously looking into Islam. May Allah open his heart.
Notice that the man asked a very straight forward question. Markus "what um objective basis does the believer have in his assurance of salvation that is not based upon subjective experience"
James White replies, "Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ"
However, he will come back and contradict this very assertion just a paragraph (2 minutes) latter. First James White tries his hand at obfuscation pretending to answer a different question. The man's question was straight forward. Finally James comes to it when he says, "Or are we talking about the much more personalized version of that and that is how do I myself know ummm how do I have a a uhh certainty of my relationship with Christ."
That is exactly what the man wants to know James! However, to be more precise he wants to know how can he know this in a way that is objective.
If we say well the objective reason is "that the person that is IN Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life." However, that is begging the question is it not? How does one know they are 'IN' Christ Jesus in a way that is objective and not subjective.
White is dancing around the question.
Notice that White contradicts himself. He says,
"Well, the Obviously the objective basis of assurance of salvation is not found in looking at yourself it's found in the finished work of Jesus Christ"
However, look what James says here,
And so "a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession."
This is the same route that James McArthur took in his book 'Saved without a Doubt" and you can see where he dropped the ball here: http://www.acommonword.net/2009/12/christian-evangelist-john-macarthur-ask.html
Just like James McArthur; White is telling us to take a look in the mirror and ask the following.
1) Do I love my brethern. Yes I do! Check I am saved.
2) Do I seek to walk in the light and not the darkness. Yes of course! Check I am saved.
3) Do I believe that Jesus is the Christ. Duh! Of Course! Check I am saved.
4) Is my doctrine solid. Well according to myself yes! Check again I am saved. Woo hoo!
Muslims do you want to give your life to Jesus Christ for a 'certain level of assurance' ????
James White, "Now that's not to say that the brand new believer cannot have uhh eh a certain level of assurance."
I give a ticket to the lady at the stand, "Yes ma'am this air plane is 89% certain to get you where you need to go."
You have an 89% chance that you are indeed saved. Wow! Christianity sure has down graded from the days of 100% assurance of salvation. Times are a changing folks.
The following is nit picking; however since White likes to style himself as a perfectionist I thought this was note worthy. See if you can spot the contradiction in the following paragraph from White. (Helpful hint it's in red)
I mean anybody who could look at their lives and go oh yeah I'm just like Jesus I respond to everything in life just like Jesus uhh um Wow! uhh I've not met those folks. And as soon (laughing) and the few that I've met that did say it as soon as I questioned them did not respond like Jesus for some odd reason.
James White presupossitional apologetic to the rescue!
"the objective element of our our assurance"
How do I know what that objective element is?
"that the person that is IN Jesus Christ will not fail to receive eternal life"
How do I know that I am IN Jesus Christ?
"a person who loves a brethern a person who walks in the light not seeking to walk in the darkness, uhh the the person that uh believes that Jesus is the Christ there's a uh there's a solid doctrinal content, uh to his profession"
Summary: Your assurance of salvation is SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE.
Hence the need for certain Christian groups to give outward manifestations that they are saved "Snake handling, drinking poison, laying on of hands, flopping around on church floors etc"
It's no surprise that the Holiness/Pentacostal/Charismatic churches grew out of Wesleyan Methodist movements.
Of course there are other factors that White didn't want to mention. Factors that the Calvinist are very *hush* *hush* about.
So Markus and other sincere Christians who are out there troubled by these issues. You are most welcome to read the following link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/why-do-reformed-christians-believe-god_18.html
Don't worry folks I'll do my best to answer the questions that White flunks out on. I get the feeling that not only are the callers feeling a bit cheated and let down even Richard Pierce who runs the studio with White more than likely gets a little tired of White's 'self centered' approach. Some how I get the feeling that Richard isn't really appreciated for his work in the studio. Who knows?
I mean I never met Pierce in person but it doesn't take a rocket scientist when you listen to the dividing line to realize that White really does not appreciate him. How self centered and uncaring can a person be?
What does it say about a religion or a faith for that matter that talks about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but they fail in their own personal relationships with one another as human beings?
White might as well have a button, a hat, and a t -shirt that simply says "ME" on it. As I warned White a few months ago if he doesn't start appreciating those who actually do look up to him and support him (such a Pierce) he may find in the future that not only are his bike rides solitary...all other ventures maybe solitary too.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Debate: Approach to the New Testament - Word of God or Development of man
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alaikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be you upon all)
Debate: Approach to the New Testament - Word of God or Development of man: David Seccombe (Christian) and Yusuf Ismail (Muslim)
You may also be interested in seeing former Christian Bart Ehrman debating Craig Evans: Is the New Testament Reliable? here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/07/former-christian-debates-craig-evans-is.html
As salamu 'alaikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be you upon all)
Debate: Approach to the New Testament - Word of God or Development of man: David Seccombe (Christian) and Yusuf Ismail (Muslim)
You may also be interested in seeing former Christian Bart Ehrman debating Craig Evans: Is the New Testament Reliable? here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/07/former-christian-debates-craig-evans-is.html
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Greatness of The Prophet Muhammad-Hamza Yusuf
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all)
The Greatness of The Prophet Muhammad-Hamza Yusuf
Here is a six part video that I thought would be useful and beneficial for all of you Allah-willing.
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all)
The Greatness of The Prophet Muhammad-Hamza Yusuf
Here is a six part video that I thought would be useful and beneficial for all of you Allah-willing.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody"
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all).
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody"
Some times some people do not know how to quit while there ahead. James White after being refuted, debunked, reprimanded, corrected, and educated continues on in his ways.
In fact many times people like Yahya Snow and myself do him a huge favor by even blogging or writing about him at all. Most of the people in my circles say ....James ...who?
There are times I feel like writing him and saying....Sir....Stop! So that you may save face and do Christianity some good.....stop.
The Christian polemic against Islam is starting dry up as of late. I find it interesting. I know that Muslim apologist and those involved in polemic are no where on par with their Christian counter parts. The Christian argument against Islam has been a slow crescendo that has long since reached it's apex.
However, it does not stop the missionary and their onslaught against Allah's deen for mankind. There is fertile ground among the masses who's only recourse to Islam is Fox News, CNN or the latest newspaper headlines.
It is in the dark corners of the human mind that misinformation and propaganda against Islam finds it's fertile nesting ground.
James White is one among many missionaries hoping that with a little water, and a whole lot of darkness the seeds of misinformation will take hold and root in the mind of the unwary masses.
I will say this to the credit of James White. He claims he has listened to Yasir Qadhi's lecture series on the hadith sciences. He also says he ask Christian audiences how many of them have actually read the Qur'an and to his dismay one or two hands shoot up. All of this is to his credit and he has my respect for this.
Yet, as I have learned this is all part of his particular charade. He feigns sincerity and 'fair shake' approach to lure in his unsuspecting prey.
You see it's one thing to listen to Yasir Qadhi's lecture series on hadith. It's quite another to grasp and understand it. Has James White taken a test on the lecture series? If so what was his score? Where has James received an Ijazah to teach hadith?
Unfortunately just like the word "Dr" in front of his name this is one of a myriad of ways James tries to make himself relevant in the field of Christian-Muslim apologetic.
You can see the discussion where other Christians talked about him faking his degree here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/02/apologist-james-white-coy-about.html "Apologist James White Coy About Doctorate"
There are probably two issues that James White needs to stop parading in front of Muslims during debates because it's just dishonest and absolutely non scholastic.
#1) He claims that the Qur'an gets the Trinity wrong. He borrows these arguments from the Zwemer institute for Islamic Studies based in and around Chicago Illinois. He makes very fallacious claims that the Qur'an makes Mary a part of the Trinity.
I believe that Abdullah Al Andalusi did a very good job in his debate with James. I have given that debate and commentary here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/big-homoousia-debate-abdullah-al.html
#2) He claims that the Qur'an confirms the Bible. I have given response to that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/01/does-quran-teach-bible-was-corrupted.html
For those interested you can also see a healthy exchange between Ken Temple ( a four point Calvinist (he does not believe in baby baptism like Calvin; and a member of the Baptist Reformed Tradition). This exchange is here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true.html
I'm going to give a segmented break down by this video of James White. I have also recommend that this be downloaded and burned to a C.D (just in case James has some technical problems and the video no longer becomes available wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
As far as I'm concerned James White is completely irrelevant in the field of Islamic-Christian apologetic and polemic. His presentation sounds tired and not very well thought out. This is very different from a James White I knew who sounded sharp and confident. There are just some concepts and ideas presented which are sub par even by White's usual standards which at times can be descent.
This is 1 hour and 40 minutes of presentation. It was painful to listen to but for you the truth seeker, and for all those Christians who are now disillusioned with Christian theology I will do what I can to break down his presentation and show how and why it is problematic.
In the video above at 0:0 2:18-19 James mentions the fact that Hamza AbdulMalik his first debate opponent is now a "Qur'an Only" Muslim. He goes on to mention Sam Shamoun was on the show and says that he has people who show that the word 'Wa' is a connector.
What is the point here? So 'wa' is a connector? No point at all just White rattling on about things he has no knowledge about.
At 0:03:46 minutes into the discussion James White tells us that the problem with the Muslims is that we ASSUME that Muhammed (saw) is truthful and the Qur'an is true. However, Christians are correct because they ASSUME that the Biblical portrayal of Jesus is accurate.
Ummmm did I miss something? It's wrong for Muslims to have a presuppositional view of the Qur'an but it's o.k for Christians to have a presuppositional view of the New Testament?
Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and in this case a failed presentation...
White than tries to make his presentation look solid by using a not so convincing presentation by Muslims. The thing I fine funny is when I hear White speak I could imagine a Muslim sitting in that chair and leveling the exact same charge at the Christian.
"Once the Christian is presented with the evidence the Biblical record of Jesus can't be trusted, they simply ignore it". C'mon! This is polemic nothing academic about it. (Hince the need to get one's degree from a forgery mill) ....moving on....
At 0:07:35 minutes into the discussion White tries to say that Isa (Esau) is not the name of Jesus. Well duh! Jesus is not even the name of Jesus! If God almighty wanted everyone to call Jesus Yeshouah he could have had the New Testament inspired in Hebrew and not written and passed down in Coine Greek. Think about it.
Not only that but Yeshouah translated into English is Joshua. That just doesn't work for the Christian. "In the name of Joshua!" "You are healed in the name of Joshua!" "Joshua Christ is the answer". So I thought that 'point' was a little off key even for White.
James White uses Liberal Scholarship??? Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. 0:08:20 minutes into the presentation.
Well, well well the chickens do come home to roost don't they? I don't know how many times James says to Muslims why do you quote redaction critiques and liberals; yet lo and behold the good "Dr" himself is now quoting liberal scholarship. Simply Amazing.
At 0:08:40 White says the Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. This is just rhetoric. We all know that the New Testament is a presentation not a person.
A person is flesh and blood. Both the Qur'an and the New Testament give a presentation as to who he was.
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
0:09:48 minutes into the presentation the Sovereign God of the universe willed for the following to come out of the lips of James White, "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
Think about that! Imagine being IN the body of Christ, and being SANCTIFIED by God and making that statement while leveling an attack upon a revelation (the Qur'an) which claims to present the prophet Jesus (before he became super-sized)
This is what you get. When you attack Allah's words you will be made to look silly.
Any way moving along...
0:10:10 Jesus is basically a walking argument for monotheism and the prophecy of Muhammed. Well once again you think? James White is coming from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus IS the focus.
The Muslim is coming from a world view in which GOD IS the focus. In fact for all the grandstanding that White is doing about Jesus not being the focus, seems the last time I went to Church Paul was quoted the majority of the time. Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament books, Jesus Christ wrote Zip, Zilch, Nada, Nothing.
I would find it very strange if after Prophet Muhammed (saw) died some one came along in Islam and claimed the right to write inspired revelation on behalf of God, and presented a different theological picture than what the Prophet Muhammed (saw) brought. This is the parallel we are looking at.
It's amazing that at 0:10:25 minutes James starts talking about 'history' as if he knows what is historical and what is not. In fact this is a technique used across the board from William Lane Craig to White to make it seem as if everything in the New Testament is verifiable fact of history.
Well, let's ask historians themselves the definition of history.
Historical proof is by no means black and white – that is, something is either proved about someone or its not. Instead of speaking of “proof”, in the historical sciences it is much clearer to speak of “levels of confidence”. That is, we can have varying levels of confidence in the truth or falsity of a historical claim. The more evidence (and the better), the higher our level of confidence is.
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
However, listen to what White says as it comes back on him again just a few minutes latter.
0:10:27 Muhammed (saw) just 'uncritically accepted them and things like that'. Is this really how a person gives an academic presentation? "things like that". I mean how often does James White fail to give his audience something substantiate but leaves us with the empty word 'things".
I know in the United States we are a dumb down generation in terms of our literacy, but c'mon when we are talking about eternal salvation surely we can do better than "things like that".
0:13:30 "What Muhammed (saw) would have would show an in depth understanding of who Jesus was". This is also a very weak argument. The reason it is weak is because once again it assumes that Jesus IS the focus. Maybe for the Christian who has now been inundated with 'original sin', Calvinism, trinitarian presentations of the creator; but for the Muslim the focus IS GOD.
The proof is obvious. Notice that James White does not go on and on about how the Qur'an does not give us an in depth understanding of Aaron, or Lut or Noah for that matter.
Again James White is approaching Islam from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus is at the center. I'm sorry James but God Almighty from before the time of Abraham and even after the time of Muhammed (saw) WAS, IS and Shall forever be THE FOCUS.
0:13:49 "has only encountered Christianity MAYBE on caravan trips to Syria, sitting around the camp fire listening to stories from CHRISTIANS and Jews why is it that the story of Jesus in the Qur'an is much more commensurate with that."
Mash'Allah VERY GOOD JAMES!!! If he would only ponder that very point! Notice what James is saying (if he would only ponder it) His admission though it is speculation (MAYBE) that Muhammed (saw) encountered CHRISTIANITY (not gnosticism) and he was listening to stories from CHRISTIANS (not Gnostics).
So here would be a good question. What happened? Surely in all those caravan trips to Syria, and all those camp fire stories he heard the good Christians mention something about 'Trinity', 'Original Sin', 'Jesus is Deity'. etc?
Not only that but it refutes his earlier point about the so called apocryphal text in the Qur'an. Obviously if Muhammed (saw) was getting such sources from Christians and Christianity those whom he "received' must have thought highly of it.
However, I won't go into the fact that the Christian world (till this very day) disputes what is the canon of both the New and the Old Testament. (That's for another entry insh'Allah).
0:14:20 "Allah knew everything the New Testament said about Jesus". Two assumptions here.
1) That the New Testament gives an accurate portrait of who Jesus really was.
2) That it is even important to give EVERYTHING about Jesus.
How silly a statement is that! Once again...
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The New Testament itself doesn't give EVERYTHING about Jesus. In fact after his birth we only hear about Jesus from the age of 30-33. So what does this prove? It proves nothing.
The Qur'an presents about Jesus, David, Solomon, Moses only what Allah feels is relevant nothing more and nothing less. Case closed.
I hope people forgive this statement as some may see it as a cheap shot; however I am saying this sincerely. I think 'Dr' White's age is catching up with him. He's not as focused or as sharp as he once was for sure.
0:19:50 My goodness James does get a head of himself. Who would dare pick up the phone! Gasp! He has a kindle, and a mac book pro that has the Greek manuscripts with all the variations from the most minute detailed.
For example Christians can pull out a fragment called P52 oh my goodness and guess what there is some very ancient text on there and though it is hard to make out some of it looks like what is in my Bible today!
Well you can see a very good academic response by brother Ibn Anwar here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/what-about-that-p52-manuscript.html
"If you know anyone who can read Greek ask the person if he can make sense of the above. Believe me, even if he is a professor in Greek he won’t be able to make sense of the fragment by itself. So, how did the scholars reconstruct the missing words? It’s quite simple. The verses are reconstructed based on LATER texts that are clearer. To say that P52 reliably transmits John 18 is absolutely fallacious"
0:22:41 The Qur'an does not quote the Bible therefore it is not true. Again more fallacious assumptions. This assumes that the Qur'an needs to quote from the Bible in order to gain credence. Think about it for a moment. When did the vast majority of mankind become literate? When did people in Arabia gain a 90% literacy rate. Even if the Qur'an quoted the Bible (assuming it is true) what would it prove?
This idea that the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament is a laughable assertion at best. In fact in the debate above James White when asked by Abdullah Al Andalusi about Matthew 2:23 "He shall be called the Nazarene" really does a song and dance with it.
His response was nothing new to me. It was the same James Patrick Holding borrowed from Gleason Archer and Strong's concordance that I have heard time and time again... Nothing new, nothing convincing.
You can see my interaction with a Christian named McElhaney who takes apologetic up as a hobby horse here: So you can see if the New Testament does indeed quote the Old Testament accurately or if there is quote mining taking place here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/ancient-christian-art-quoting-out-of.html
0:24:00 Now I know where James is going with this as he has done so to his own detriment time and time again. The Qur'an misrepresents the trinity. However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an". Exactly!
However, James White is a very clever cat. He realizes that he can no longer say the Qur'an misrepresents the Trinity, because the Qur'an does not even make an attempt to define the trinity!
But James White can not be seen to make an error and even more so he has to be seen as relevant and crafty thus he sipped his coffee, rubbed his chin and he thought...
and he thought..... suddenly a light bulb. O.K I will concede that point (though I won't admit it) but I will take a different approach. Now what I will do is focus on the word THREE.
Even though God say he is One. Now James again feigns innocence by saying he is not misrepresenting the Qur'an. If that is the case why does James White need to insert his own exegesis and theological speculation in the Qur'an at 0:27:44 minutes into the discussion.
"The only way it seems to make any sense to me is if the original author is saying do not say three gods Allah is but one God".
I want to break down this statement of James White and show why it is problematic.
#1) James has already shown at this point there is no room for discussion on the matter when he begins the statement 'THE ONLY WAY'.
#2) When he says, "to make any sense to me" basically to reinforce his presuppositional view that the Qur'an is flawed and the New Testament is accurate. Because we all know the Qur'an cannot possibly be the word of God in James White's world view.
#3) James White has to make three say three Gods. The Qur'an simply says do not say three. This is not aimed at the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the common Arab who worships the sun or the moon. The Christians themselves know full well what they mean when they say three. God is simply telling them to desist.
Now what James White has effectively done (and his craftiness is rather sad) is to pre-empt the argument that we will now be using when he brings up the issue about Mary being a part of the Trinity (which is ridiculous).
Instead what James will now be arguing in his presentations in the future is that this argues that the Christians worship three Gods. His response will be we don't worship three gods we worship one God. His assertion now will be that the Muslims do not understand the concept of God living in community, or the tri-une nature of God.
To get to the short and sweet of it. James White himself mentioned there was much debate on this matter (with in Christianity). Now this should be food for thought for the thoughtful Christian. When you read and study the detailed debates that Christians had about the trinity (rarely if ever were proof text cited). This is not how Christians went about arguing on behalf of theological points. What was done was theological and philosophical concepts were advanced.
So it does not surprise me that James would now take this route and I am glad I had seen this video as it shows me the extent in which he is willing to resist Allah. May Allah open his heart and guide him.
The problem with James White's new argument (something original for a change) is that now we are going to have not only respond to James White's concept of the trinity (and what it entails) we will also have to give response to Sabellianism as well.
So when Allah says do not say three. We will have to deal with Sabellianism and Modalism which states that the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are three different aspects or modes of One God. We will also have to deal with Tri-theist like James White who say there are three distinct persons with in God himself.
I believe Allah is using James White to sharpen Islamic apologetic before his eventual conversion to Islam. Allah alone knows best.
Any how if James would just think about the following verse 'far above Allah from having a son'. Above or the Arabic word also means removed from. It conveys the concept or idea of being very remote and removed from the possibility of.
That means 'Do not say Three' addresses both the Sabellian and the Tri-theist. The Sabellian who says that God has three mask or three faces but is one. The Trintarian (Tri-theist) who says that God is three persons in one being.
In fact it's theologically profound for those with eyes to see and a heart to ponder that the Qur'an after saying do not say three your God is one (both in being, person and in essence) it goes into saying far removed is God from having a son. Subhan'Allah! In fact watching this presentation has increased my emaan (faith) in Allah's Qur'an al hamdulillah.
Thank you James White! So moving forward by than talking about the Son it is getting the crux of the matter. It does not talk about the Holy Spirit or even Mary. It talks about the 'Son' and that God is above and removed from having a Son.
0:35:10 James asserts that there were people who gave a good response to the Trinity better than the Qur'an does.
2 issues with James statement above.
1) It assumes once again that the Qur'an gives a portrait of the Trinity which it does not. I thought James just said a few minutes ago, "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an"
So how do we go from the Qur'an does not use the word Trinity or attempt to define it, to contrasting the Qur'an supposed presentation of the trinity to contemporary writers who may or may not have been writing responses to the Sabellian and Trinitarians. This is just very odd.
2) Did James ever consider that Allah would allow people to research and ponder over theological issues and become convinced of Islam by other than what is in the Qur'an?
0:36:56 minutes into the presentation I find it amusing when James goes on and on saying 'This is not what Christians believe" etc... Did it ever occur to James that what Christians believe is a matter of intra-Christian debate itself?
0:37:27 minutes into the presentation "That's going beyond the Qur'an" What is James trying to say here? Obviously James is doesn't know what he wants. He claims that we as Christians and Muslims speak past each other. However, when people like Abdullah Al Andalusi and Abdullah Kunde make a very great effort to read Christian theological works and than respond to it it's "going beyond the Qur'an". Clearly White is frustrated. Muslims can base their argumentation upon a verse in the Qur'an and than either expand on it linguistically, contextually, from philology and read external works that build upon the argument.
Again another weird statement coming from White.
0:39:59 "They go to liberals" That's rich! Considering that only 0:08:20 minutes into the presentation White advanced a claim from 'Liberal' Muslim scholars.
*note* White never attempts to give us the name(s) of these scholar(s) either. Nice indeed.
0:41:35 Jesus says here oh Israel worship my Lord and your Lord where did Jesus ever say these things? Some times you just have to shake your head. Did it ever occur to James White that Allah is the author of the Qur'an? That Allah is telling the Prophet (saw) what Jesus had said?
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The problem with the Christian as I mentioned above is that here you have God almighty who is on Earth for 30 years in human form and we don't even get so much as a peep from him?
How very historical is a document that gives us a very condensed version (that seems like it takes place over the span of a few months) rather than three years that does not include 95% of Jesus life?
The Christian is in a difficult position here. If they admit the possibility that Jesus may have said something that is not in the New Testament it is a theological conundrum. If Jesus is speaking than it is the words of God, and thus not all of the words of God are contained with in the Biblical text. Anyone can see why this would be a theological conundrum for them.
0:42:49 I can tell Pastor Joseph doesn't really appreciate James White. James White claims he 'feels' for the Muslim apologist. Personally I feel for James White. James White (like him or not) does do a valiant effort on behalf of the faith that he cherishes.
The problem is that James takes people like Pastor Joseph (who sits over there tapping his pen, looking bored to death and occasionally rolls his eyes) and people like Sam Shamoun as his running crew.
Truth is Pastor Joseph would rather have quacks like Walid Shoebat talking about Allah and 666 in the book of Revelation than to hear James White try to give a fairly reasonable (though horribly inconsistent) approach to apologetic.
"Force and Fear" says Pastor Joseph. Right On! Amen brother! Joseph is probably sitting there thinking you know what James you are out of touch! We are talking to the average American who is watching or listening at home who most likely doesn't have a college education or is trained in the discipline of disputation. They don't want to hear your crap!
bring on the 'FORCE AND FEAR' ahhhh yes that's the stuff! Good job Pastor Joseph what a way to keep James White focused! Remember we are not here to engage anyone, we want you to know Islam is force and fear....
0:43:23 James White really needs to read more. Every possible critique used by the likes of Anis Shorrosh (so called grammatical errors or nuances in the Qur'an) to the ahruf and qir'aat (John Gilchrist) etc are all issues brought about by Muslim scholars.
Anyone who studies the Islamic religion is given classes on the compilation and transmission of the Qur'an. Anyone (Muslim) from Mauritania to Malaysia deals with very challenging and theologically taxing issues concerning the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
So where James got off on Islam doesn't allow for debate I have no idea. As far as Muslim countries not allowing debate, than this is where James hopefully can be wise enough to recognize the difference between a world wide faith tradition and a political entity.
0:48:22 "That's not what the trinity states. That's not what the trinity teaches". Notice that James White did not say this is not what the Bible teaches.
So if we asked James White what does the 'trinity' teach or say we are in effect asking him for the dogmatic statement of the trinity that Christians believe is taught in the Bible.
Notice that James was quick to say that "we believe that each of the divine persons shares fully the entirety of the divine nature"
Question how many persons share in this divine nature?
And the assumption that the Trinity is three different Gods" The only one making assumptions and inconsistent ones at that is James White.
Notice that James White flatly contradicts himself earlier in his presentation when he says, 'The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an'
However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an"
So what is it? Does the Qur'an define the Trinity or is the word Trinity not actually in the Qur'an? How does James White propose to have his cake and eat it too in such a scenario.
You see I have already dealt with his same tired rhetoric over and over again. However, for the sake of those who are just tuning into this web site let me give you the gist of James White's 'argument'.
James White "The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of pink unicorns"
This is James White's argument. Those of you who are debating James White in the future would do well to learn his argument in a nut shell.
So James White basically comes on stage and says, 'The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn".
The crowd is silent and stunned by this amazing claim. Could it be? So what is the Muslim to do.
1) Wrong the Qur'an does accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn.
2) Your right the Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn.
Here is the problem with both of these approaches.
1) This assumes that a pink unicorn exist in the first place. It assumes the truthfulness and capitulates that indeed there are such things as pink unicorns.
2) The problem with this view is that it would undermine the Qur'an.
This is what people like James White are seeking to do. I admit he is one of the more crafty of the lot of missionaries; slippery indeed.
However, maybe there is an option 3. What is option 3? The Qur'an does not even attempt to describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn to begin with!
case closed end of debate White can go home now.
However, watch Muslims take the bait during the phone calls.
0:55:00 Mary and Jesus BOTH ate food.
James White wants to assert that again that even though the word trinity is not mentioned in the Qur'an (by his own admission) that the Qur'an gives an inaccurate portrayal of the trinity. Basically the Qur'an does not mention the anatomy of a pink unicorn but it gives an inaccurate portrayal of something it does not mention. Welcome to planet strange.
You see I come to quite an opposite conclusion than 'Dr' James White.
Did it ever occur to James White that the Qur'an is drawling attention to the fact that Mary is not divine and thus by extension Jesus is not.
Now on the surface it looks as if James is agreeing this is the case but he comes to a very different conclusion.
Imagine for example I tell a Christian, "Look Jesus ate food how on earth are you going to say that he is God?" Does God need sustenance?
Well the Christian is than going to quote, "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb." (Luke 24:42) You see Jesus was eating in his post resurrected body. Even though many Christian scholars say that this text is directed towards the Docetist. To me this whole event seems fabricated and odd. The fact that it comes after the crucifixion event seems to further substantiate that it is a polemic directed towards docetist.
"The Messiah, son of Mary was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the message clear to them! Then behold, how they are turned away!" (Holy Qur'an chapter 5:75)
This text of the Qur'an is directed towards those who took the first steps in making Jesus deity: namely the docetist or a group of Christians that held the belief of docetism.
Question: What is docetism?
Answer: The idea that Jesus did not come in the flesh or that Jesus the son of Mary was simply a spirit or apparition. "from the Greek verb dokeo, which means 'to seem, to appear to be."
The Qur'an could advance an argument like this.
1) Jesus ate food and depending upon the creator which establishes.
a) Confidence that Jesus was sent in the flesh
b) Confidence that Jesus was dependent upon something else (this would establish the dictum in Islam that Allah is independent of all needs).
The Christian counters...
1) Jesus ate food in his post resurrection appearance , thus he is an immaterial being (deity) that can annihilate matter (like broiled fish and honeycomb)
The Qur'an counters...
Jesus ate food for the same reason that Mary ate food. She/he is dependent upon another source for sustenance.
The Qur'ans argument is established, the Christian argument puzzling. Why puzzling? Why does Jesus have to eat broiled fish and/or honeycomb to prove he was resurrected? Was he simply hungry? A man who conquers death is now a bit hungry? How odd.
I deal more with that here.
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/is-christ-jesus-god-part-1.html
0:55:28 minutes into the presentation White makes a point that supports what I had mentioned above.
He says, the only thing that would make sense to him is the following:
A) Your assumption that God cannot enter into human flesh and hince Jesus would not eat food and of course we reject that. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb." (Luke 24:42)
B) That Mary is a divine being which we do not believe.
Now of course James White has to go with option B. Why? Because even though he has admitted that the Qur'an no where attempts to definite the anatomy of a pink unicorn he still must press on. Otherwise James is going to be looking rather flat when he shows up to debate Muslims and he has no argumentation of his own.
The show must go on as they say.
James White could not allow for option A because that would harmonize the Qur'an and be more coherent. So that alone should be an eye opener for people who reflect.
0:57:58 minutes into the presentation "So clearly the writer of the Qur'an has the wrong Jesus, and the wrong Trinity and the wrong argument to make in refuting these things."
However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an". Exactly!
So again the Qur'an does not attempt to explain the anatomy of a pink unicorn but I'll be damned if James White doesn't bend over backwards to desperately hold on to a failed polemic that the Qur'an inaccurately describes the anatomy of a pink unicorn!
Simply Incredible! I am simply amazed because James White (you can see it on his face) actually believes he has a very good argument and presentation.
His presentation is easily shredded in a public platform or a debate. This presentation is nothing new. Rehashed and borrowed information from Zwemer institute of Islamic studies.
Any way I stopped watching and taking notes after 1:20:00 minutes into the video as I got rather bored with what was presented. Maybe Allah willing I will come back and deal with what ever points remained. However, if someone has anything they wish to redress or feel was brought up between White and Joseph that I could try and answer please do not hesitate.
I will do my best to present the facts and evidences; to be measured and balanced. Anything that is good from me all the praise is due to Allah. Only the mistakes are mine.
Below is an excellent presentation in the Arabic language refuting the polemic the Qur'an mentions Mary as being part of the Trinity. Thank you to brother Ahmed (may Allah reward him) for making me aware of such a video.
As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you all).
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody"
Some times some people do not know how to quit while there ahead. James White after being refuted, debunked, reprimanded, corrected, and educated continues on in his ways.
In fact many times people like Yahya Snow and myself do him a huge favor by even blogging or writing about him at all. Most of the people in my circles say ....James ...who?
There are times I feel like writing him and saying....Sir....Stop! So that you may save face and do Christianity some good.....stop.
The Christian polemic against Islam is starting dry up as of late. I find it interesting. I know that Muslim apologist and those involved in polemic are no where on par with their Christian counter parts. The Christian argument against Islam has been a slow crescendo that has long since reached it's apex.
However, it does not stop the missionary and their onslaught against Allah's deen for mankind. There is fertile ground among the masses who's only recourse to Islam is Fox News, CNN or the latest newspaper headlines.
It is in the dark corners of the human mind that misinformation and propaganda against Islam finds it's fertile nesting ground.
James White is one among many missionaries hoping that with a little water, and a whole lot of darkness the seeds of misinformation will take hold and root in the mind of the unwary masses.
I will say this to the credit of James White. He claims he has listened to Yasir Qadhi's lecture series on the hadith sciences. He also says he ask Christian audiences how many of them have actually read the Qur'an and to his dismay one or two hands shoot up. All of this is to his credit and he has my respect for this.
Yet, as I have learned this is all part of his particular charade. He feigns sincerity and 'fair shake' approach to lure in his unsuspecting prey.
You see it's one thing to listen to Yasir Qadhi's lecture series on hadith. It's quite another to grasp and understand it. Has James White taken a test on the lecture series? If so what was his score? Where has James received an Ijazah to teach hadith?
Unfortunately just like the word "Dr" in front of his name this is one of a myriad of ways James tries to make himself relevant in the field of Christian-Muslim apologetic.
You can see the discussion where other Christians talked about him faking his degree here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/02/apologist-james-white-coy-about.html "Apologist James White Coy About Doctorate"
There are probably two issues that James White needs to stop parading in front of Muslims during debates because it's just dishonest and absolutely non scholastic.
#1) He claims that the Qur'an gets the Trinity wrong. He borrows these arguments from the Zwemer institute for Islamic Studies based in and around Chicago Illinois. He makes very fallacious claims that the Qur'an makes Mary a part of the Trinity.
I believe that Abdullah Al Andalusi did a very good job in his debate with James. I have given that debate and commentary here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/big-homoousia-debate-abdullah-al.html
#2) He claims that the Qur'an confirms the Bible. I have given response to that here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/01/does-quran-teach-bible-was-corrupted.html
For those interested you can also see a healthy exchange between Ken Temple ( a four point Calvinist (he does not believe in baby baptism like Calvin; and a member of the Baptist Reformed Tradition). This exchange is here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true.html
I'm going to give a segmented break down by this video of James White. I have also recommend that this be downloaded and burned to a C.D (just in case James has some technical problems and the video no longer becomes available wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
As far as I'm concerned James White is completely irrelevant in the field of Islamic-Christian apologetic and polemic. His presentation sounds tired and not very well thought out. This is very different from a James White I knew who sounded sharp and confident. There are just some concepts and ideas presented which are sub par even by White's usual standards which at times can be descent.
This is 1 hour and 40 minutes of presentation. It was painful to listen to but for you the truth seeker, and for all those Christians who are now disillusioned with Christian theology I will do what I can to break down his presentation and show how and why it is problematic.
In the video above at 0:0 2:18-19 James mentions the fact that Hamza AbdulMalik his first debate opponent is now a "Qur'an Only" Muslim. He goes on to mention Sam Shamoun was on the show and says that he has people who show that the word 'Wa' is a connector.
What is the point here? So 'wa' is a connector? No point at all just White rattling on about things he has no knowledge about.
At 0:03:46 minutes into the discussion James White tells us that the problem with the Muslims is that we ASSUME that Muhammed (saw) is truthful and the Qur'an is true. However, Christians are correct because they ASSUME that the Biblical portrayal of Jesus is accurate.
Ummmm did I miss something? It's wrong for Muslims to have a presuppositional view of the Qur'an but it's o.k for Christians to have a presuppositional view of the New Testament?
Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument and in this case a failed presentation...
White than tries to make his presentation look solid by using a not so convincing presentation by Muslims. The thing I fine funny is when I hear White speak I could imagine a Muslim sitting in that chair and leveling the exact same charge at the Christian.
"Once the Christian is presented with the evidence the Biblical record of Jesus can't be trusted, they simply ignore it". C'mon! This is polemic nothing academic about it. (Hince the need to get one's degree from a forgery mill) ....moving on....
At 0:07:35 minutes into the discussion White tries to say that Isa (Esau) is not the name of Jesus. Well duh! Jesus is not even the name of Jesus! If God almighty wanted everyone to call Jesus Yeshouah he could have had the New Testament inspired in Hebrew and not written and passed down in Coine Greek. Think about it.
Not only that but Yeshouah translated into English is Joshua. That just doesn't work for the Christian. "In the name of Joshua!" "You are healed in the name of Joshua!" "Joshua Christ is the answer". So I thought that 'point' was a little off key even for White.
James White uses Liberal Scholarship??? Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. 0:08:20 minutes into the presentation.
Well, well well the chickens do come home to roost don't they? I don't know how many times James says to Muslims why do you quote redaction critiques and liberals; yet lo and behold the good "Dr" himself is now quoting liberal scholarship. Simply Amazing.
At 0:08:40 White says the Jesus of the Qur'an is an argument not a person. This is just rhetoric. We all know that the New Testament is a presentation not a person.
A person is flesh and blood. Both the Qur'an and the New Testament give a presentation as to who he was.
Holy Spirit inspires James White "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
0:09:48 minutes into the presentation the Sovereign God of the universe willed for the following to come out of the lips of James White, "Jesus of the Bible is a one dimensional shallow person that could never be loved by anybody."
Think about that! Imagine being IN the body of Christ, and being SANCTIFIED by God and making that statement while leveling an attack upon a revelation (the Qur'an) which claims to present the prophet Jesus (before he became super-sized)
This is what you get. When you attack Allah's words you will be made to look silly.
Any way moving along...
0:10:10 Jesus is basically a walking argument for monotheism and the prophecy of Muhammed. Well once again you think? James White is coming from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus IS the focus.
The Muslim is coming from a world view in which GOD IS the focus. In fact for all the grandstanding that White is doing about Jesus not being the focus, seems the last time I went to Church Paul was quoted the majority of the time. Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament books, Jesus Christ wrote Zip, Zilch, Nada, Nothing.
I would find it very strange if after Prophet Muhammed (saw) died some one came along in Islam and claimed the right to write inspired revelation on behalf of God, and presented a different theological picture than what the Prophet Muhammed (saw) brought. This is the parallel we are looking at.
It's amazing that at 0:10:25 minutes James starts talking about 'history' as if he knows what is historical and what is not. In fact this is a technique used across the board from William Lane Craig to White to make it seem as if everything in the New Testament is verifiable fact of history.
Well, let's ask historians themselves the definition of history.
Historical proof is by no means black and white – that is, something is either proved about someone or its not. Instead of speaking of “proof”, in the historical sciences it is much clearer to speak of “levels of confidence”. That is, we can have varying levels of confidence in the truth or falsity of a historical claim. The more evidence (and the better), the higher our level of confidence is.
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
However, listen to what White says as it comes back on him again just a few minutes latter.
0:10:27 Muhammed (saw) just 'uncritically accepted them and things like that'. Is this really how a person gives an academic presentation? "things like that". I mean how often does James White fail to give his audience something substantiate but leaves us with the empty word 'things".
I know in the United States we are a dumb down generation in terms of our literacy, but c'mon when we are talking about eternal salvation surely we can do better than "things like that".
0:13:30 "What Muhammed (saw) would have would show an in depth understanding of who Jesus was". This is also a very weak argument. The reason it is weak is because once again it assumes that Jesus IS the focus. Maybe for the Christian who has now been inundated with 'original sin', Calvinism, trinitarian presentations of the creator; but for the Muslim the focus IS GOD.
The proof is obvious. Notice that James White does not go on and on about how the Qur'an does not give us an in depth understanding of Aaron, or Lut or Noah for that matter.
Again James White is approaching Islam from a presuppositional world view in which Jesus is at the center. I'm sorry James but God Almighty from before the time of Abraham and even after the time of Muhammed (saw) WAS, IS and Shall forever be THE FOCUS.
0:13:49 "has only encountered Christianity MAYBE on caravan trips to Syria, sitting around the camp fire listening to stories from CHRISTIANS and Jews why is it that the story of Jesus in the Qur'an is much more commensurate with that."
Mash'Allah VERY GOOD JAMES!!! If he would only ponder that very point! Notice what James is saying (if he would only ponder it) His admission though it is speculation (MAYBE) that Muhammed (saw) encountered CHRISTIANITY (not gnosticism) and he was listening to stories from CHRISTIANS (not Gnostics).
So here would be a good question. What happened? Surely in all those caravan trips to Syria, and all those camp fire stories he heard the good Christians mention something about 'Trinity', 'Original Sin', 'Jesus is Deity'. etc?
Not only that but it refutes his earlier point about the so called apocryphal text in the Qur'an. Obviously if Muhammed (saw) was getting such sources from Christians and Christianity those whom he "received' must have thought highly of it.
However, I won't go into the fact that the Christian world (till this very day) disputes what is the canon of both the New and the Old Testament. (That's for another entry insh'Allah).
0:14:20 "Allah knew everything the New Testament said about Jesus". Two assumptions here.
1) That the New Testament gives an accurate portrait of who Jesus really was.
2) That it is even important to give EVERYTHING about Jesus.
How silly a statement is that! Once again...
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The New Testament itself doesn't give EVERYTHING about Jesus. In fact after his birth we only hear about Jesus from the age of 30-33. So what does this prove? It proves nothing.
The Qur'an presents about Jesus, David, Solomon, Moses only what Allah feels is relevant nothing more and nothing less. Case closed.
I hope people forgive this statement as some may see it as a cheap shot; however I am saying this sincerely. I think 'Dr' White's age is catching up with him. He's not as focused or as sharp as he once was for sure.
0:19:50 My goodness James does get a head of himself. Who would dare pick up the phone! Gasp! He has a kindle, and a mac book pro that has the Greek manuscripts with all the variations from the most minute detailed.
For example Christians can pull out a fragment called P52 oh my goodness and guess what there is some very ancient text on there and though it is hard to make out some of it looks like what is in my Bible today!
Well you can see a very good academic response by brother Ibn Anwar here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/what-about-that-p52-manuscript.html
"If you know anyone who can read Greek ask the person if he can make sense of the above. Believe me, even if he is a professor in Greek he won’t be able to make sense of the fragment by itself. So, how did the scholars reconstruct the missing words? It’s quite simple. The verses are reconstructed based on LATER texts that are clearer. To say that P52 reliably transmits John 18 is absolutely fallacious"
0:22:41 The Qur'an does not quote the Bible therefore it is not true. Again more fallacious assumptions. This assumes that the Qur'an needs to quote from the Bible in order to gain credence. Think about it for a moment. When did the vast majority of mankind become literate? When did people in Arabia gain a 90% literacy rate. Even if the Qur'an quoted the Bible (assuming it is true) what would it prove?
This idea that the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament is a laughable assertion at best. In fact in the debate above James White when asked by Abdullah Al Andalusi about Matthew 2:23 "He shall be called the Nazarene" really does a song and dance with it.
His response was nothing new to me. It was the same James Patrick Holding borrowed from Gleason Archer and Strong's concordance that I have heard time and time again... Nothing new, nothing convincing.
You can see my interaction with a Christian named McElhaney who takes apologetic up as a hobby horse here: So you can see if the New Testament does indeed quote the Old Testament accurately or if there is quote mining taking place here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/ancient-christian-art-quoting-out-of.html
0:24:00 Now I know where James is going with this as he has done so to his own detriment time and time again. The Qur'an misrepresents the trinity. However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an". Exactly!
However, James White is a very clever cat. He realizes that he can no longer say the Qur'an misrepresents the Trinity, because the Qur'an does not even make an attempt to define the trinity!
But James White can not be seen to make an error and even more so he has to be seen as relevant and crafty thus he sipped his coffee, rubbed his chin and he thought...
and he thought..... suddenly a light bulb. O.K I will concede that point (though I won't admit it) but I will take a different approach. Now what I will do is focus on the word THREE.
Even though God say he is One. Now James again feigns innocence by saying he is not misrepresenting the Qur'an. If that is the case why does James White need to insert his own exegesis and theological speculation in the Qur'an at 0:27:44 minutes into the discussion.
"The only way it seems to make any sense to me is if the original author is saying do not say three gods Allah is but one God".
I want to break down this statement of James White and show why it is problematic.
#1) James has already shown at this point there is no room for discussion on the matter when he begins the statement 'THE ONLY WAY'.
#2) When he says, "to make any sense to me" basically to reinforce his presuppositional view that the Qur'an is flawed and the New Testament is accurate. Because we all know the Qur'an cannot possibly be the word of God in James White's world view.
#3) James White has to make three say three Gods. The Qur'an simply says do not say three. This is not aimed at the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the common Arab who worships the sun or the moon. The Christians themselves know full well what they mean when they say three. God is simply telling them to desist.
Now what James White has effectively done (and his craftiness is rather sad) is to pre-empt the argument that we will now be using when he brings up the issue about Mary being a part of the Trinity (which is ridiculous).
Instead what James will now be arguing in his presentations in the future is that this argues that the Christians worship three Gods. His response will be we don't worship three gods we worship one God. His assertion now will be that the Muslims do not understand the concept of God living in community, or the tri-une nature of God.
To get to the short and sweet of it. James White himself mentioned there was much debate on this matter (with in Christianity). Now this should be food for thought for the thoughtful Christian. When you read and study the detailed debates that Christians had about the trinity (rarely if ever were proof text cited). This is not how Christians went about arguing on behalf of theological points. What was done was theological and philosophical concepts were advanced.
So it does not surprise me that James would now take this route and I am glad I had seen this video as it shows me the extent in which he is willing to resist Allah. May Allah open his heart and guide him.
The problem with James White's new argument (something original for a change) is that now we are going to have not only respond to James White's concept of the trinity (and what it entails) we will also have to give response to Sabellianism as well.
So when Allah says do not say three. We will have to deal with Sabellianism and Modalism which states that the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are three different aspects or modes of One God. We will also have to deal with Tri-theist like James White who say there are three distinct persons with in God himself.
I believe Allah is using James White to sharpen Islamic apologetic before his eventual conversion to Islam. Allah alone knows best.
Any how if James would just think about the following verse 'far above Allah from having a son'. Above or the Arabic word also means removed from. It conveys the concept or idea of being very remote and removed from the possibility of.
That means 'Do not say Three' addresses both the Sabellian and the Tri-theist. The Sabellian who says that God has three mask or three faces but is one. The Trintarian (Tri-theist) who says that God is three persons in one being.
In fact it's theologically profound for those with eyes to see and a heart to ponder that the Qur'an after saying do not say three your God is one (both in being, person and in essence) it goes into saying far removed is God from having a son. Subhan'Allah! In fact watching this presentation has increased my emaan (faith) in Allah's Qur'an al hamdulillah.
Thank you James White! So moving forward by than talking about the Son it is getting the crux of the matter. It does not talk about the Holy Spirit or even Mary. It talks about the 'Son' and that God is above and removed from having a Son.
0:35:10 James asserts that there were people who gave a good response to the Trinity better than the Qur'an does.
2 issues with James statement above.
1) It assumes once again that the Qur'an gives a portrait of the Trinity which it does not. I thought James just said a few minutes ago, "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an"
So how do we go from the Qur'an does not use the word Trinity or attempt to define it, to contrasting the Qur'an supposed presentation of the trinity to contemporary writers who may or may not have been writing responses to the Sabellian and Trinitarians. This is just very odd.
2) Did James ever consider that Allah would allow people to research and ponder over theological issues and become convinced of Islam by other than what is in the Qur'an?
0:36:56 minutes into the presentation I find it amusing when James goes on and on saying 'This is not what Christians believe" etc... Did it ever occur to James that what Christians believe is a matter of intra-Christian debate itself?
0:37:27 minutes into the presentation "That's going beyond the Qur'an" What is James trying to say here? Obviously James is doesn't know what he wants. He claims that we as Christians and Muslims speak past each other. However, when people like Abdullah Al Andalusi and Abdullah Kunde make a very great effort to read Christian theological works and than respond to it it's "going beyond the Qur'an". Clearly White is frustrated. Muslims can base their argumentation upon a verse in the Qur'an and than either expand on it linguistically, contextually, from philology and read external works that build upon the argument.
Again another weird statement coming from White.
0:39:59 "They go to liberals" That's rich! Considering that only 0:08:20 minutes into the presentation White advanced a claim from 'Liberal' Muslim scholars.
*note* White never attempts to give us the name(s) of these scholar(s) either. Nice indeed.
0:41:35 Jesus says here oh Israel worship my Lord and your Lord where did Jesus ever say these things? Some times you just have to shake your head. Did it ever occur to James White that Allah is the author of the Qur'an? That Allah is telling the Prophet (saw) what Jesus had said?
Jesus did many other things as well (not mentioned in this source) If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The problem with the Christian as I mentioned above is that here you have God almighty who is on Earth for 30 years in human form and we don't even get so much as a peep from him?
How very historical is a document that gives us a very condensed version (that seems like it takes place over the span of a few months) rather than three years that does not include 95% of Jesus life?
The Christian is in a difficult position here. If they admit the possibility that Jesus may have said something that is not in the New Testament it is a theological conundrum. If Jesus is speaking than it is the words of God, and thus not all of the words of God are contained with in the Biblical text. Anyone can see why this would be a theological conundrum for them.
0:42:49 I can tell Pastor Joseph doesn't really appreciate James White. James White claims he 'feels' for the Muslim apologist. Personally I feel for James White. James White (like him or not) does do a valiant effort on behalf of the faith that he cherishes.
The problem is that James takes people like Pastor Joseph (who sits over there tapping his pen, looking bored to death and occasionally rolls his eyes) and people like Sam Shamoun as his running crew.
Truth is Pastor Joseph would rather have quacks like Walid Shoebat talking about Allah and 666 in the book of Revelation than to hear James White try to give a fairly reasonable (though horribly inconsistent) approach to apologetic.
"Force and Fear" says Pastor Joseph. Right On! Amen brother! Joseph is probably sitting there thinking you know what James you are out of touch! We are talking to the average American who is watching or listening at home who most likely doesn't have a college education or is trained in the discipline of disputation. They don't want to hear your crap!
bring on the 'FORCE AND FEAR' ahhhh yes that's the stuff! Good job Pastor Joseph what a way to keep James White focused! Remember we are not here to engage anyone, we want you to know Islam is force and fear....
0:43:23 James White really needs to read more. Every possible critique used by the likes of Anis Shorrosh (so called grammatical errors or nuances in the Qur'an) to the ahruf and qir'aat (John Gilchrist) etc are all issues brought about by Muslim scholars.
Anyone who studies the Islamic religion is given classes on the compilation and transmission of the Qur'an. Anyone (Muslim) from Mauritania to Malaysia deals with very challenging and theologically taxing issues concerning the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
So where James got off on Islam doesn't allow for debate I have no idea. As far as Muslim countries not allowing debate, than this is where James hopefully can be wise enough to recognize the difference between a world wide faith tradition and a political entity.
0:48:22 "That's not what the trinity states. That's not what the trinity teaches". Notice that James White did not say this is not what the Bible teaches.
So if we asked James White what does the 'trinity' teach or say we are in effect asking him for the dogmatic statement of the trinity that Christians believe is taught in the Bible.
Notice that James was quick to say that "we believe that each of the divine persons shares fully the entirety of the divine nature"
Question how many persons share in this divine nature?
And the assumption that the Trinity is three different Gods" The only one making assumptions and inconsistent ones at that is James White.
Notice that James White flatly contradicts himself earlier in his presentation when he says, 'The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an'
However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an"
So what is it? Does the Qur'an define the Trinity or is the word Trinity not actually in the Qur'an? How does James White propose to have his cake and eat it too in such a scenario.
You see I have already dealt with his same tired rhetoric over and over again. However, for the sake of those who are just tuning into this web site let me give you the gist of James White's 'argument'.
James White "The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of pink unicorns"
This is James White's argument. Those of you who are debating James White in the future would do well to learn his argument in a nut shell.
So James White basically comes on stage and says, 'The Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn".
The crowd is silent and stunned by this amazing claim. Could it be? So what is the Muslim to do.
1) Wrong the Qur'an does accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn.
2) Your right the Qur'an does not accurately describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn.
Here is the problem with both of these approaches.
1) This assumes that a pink unicorn exist in the first place. It assumes the truthfulness and capitulates that indeed there are such things as pink unicorns.
2) The problem with this view is that it would undermine the Qur'an.
This is what people like James White are seeking to do. I admit he is one of the more crafty of the lot of missionaries; slippery indeed.
However, maybe there is an option 3. What is option 3? The Qur'an does not even attempt to describe the anatomy of a pink unicorn to begin with!
case closed end of debate White can go home now.
However, watch Muslims take the bait during the phone calls.
0:55:00 Mary and Jesus BOTH ate food.
James White wants to assert that again that even though the word trinity is not mentioned in the Qur'an (by his own admission) that the Qur'an gives an inaccurate portrayal of the trinity. Basically the Qur'an does not mention the anatomy of a pink unicorn but it gives an inaccurate portrayal of something it does not mention. Welcome to planet strange.
You see I come to quite an opposite conclusion than 'Dr' James White.
Did it ever occur to James White that the Qur'an is drawling attention to the fact that Mary is not divine and thus by extension Jesus is not.
Now on the surface it looks as if James is agreeing this is the case but he comes to a very different conclusion.
Imagine for example I tell a Christian, "Look Jesus ate food how on earth are you going to say that he is God?" Does God need sustenance?
Well the Christian is than going to quote, "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb." (Luke 24:42) You see Jesus was eating in his post resurrected body. Even though many Christian scholars say that this text is directed towards the Docetist. To me this whole event seems fabricated and odd. The fact that it comes after the crucifixion event seems to further substantiate that it is a polemic directed towards docetist.
"The Messiah, son of Mary was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the message clear to them! Then behold, how they are turned away!" (Holy Qur'an chapter 5:75)
This text of the Qur'an is directed towards those who took the first steps in making Jesus deity: namely the docetist or a group of Christians that held the belief of docetism.
Question: What is docetism?
Answer: The idea that Jesus did not come in the flesh or that Jesus the son of Mary was simply a spirit or apparition. "from the Greek verb dokeo, which means 'to seem, to appear to be."
The Qur'an could advance an argument like this.
1) Jesus ate food and depending upon the creator which establishes.
a) Confidence that Jesus was sent in the flesh
b) Confidence that Jesus was dependent upon something else (this would establish the dictum in Islam that Allah is independent of all needs).
The Christian counters...
1) Jesus ate food in his post resurrection appearance , thus he is an immaterial being (deity) that can annihilate matter (like broiled fish and honeycomb)
The Qur'an counters...
Jesus ate food for the same reason that Mary ate food. She/he is dependent upon another source for sustenance.
The Qur'ans argument is established, the Christian argument puzzling. Why puzzling? Why does Jesus have to eat broiled fish and/or honeycomb to prove he was resurrected? Was he simply hungry? A man who conquers death is now a bit hungry? How odd.
I deal more with that here.
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/is-christ-jesus-god-part-1.html
0:55:28 minutes into the presentation White makes a point that supports what I had mentioned above.
He says, the only thing that would make sense to him is the following:
A) Your assumption that God cannot enter into human flesh and hince Jesus would not eat food and of course we reject that. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb." (Luke 24:42)
B) That Mary is a divine being which we do not believe.
Now of course James White has to go with option B. Why? Because even though he has admitted that the Qur'an no where attempts to definite the anatomy of a pink unicorn he still must press on. Otherwise James is going to be looking rather flat when he shows up to debate Muslims and he has no argumentation of his own.
The show must go on as they say.
James White could not allow for option A because that would harmonize the Qur'an and be more coherent. So that alone should be an eye opener for people who reflect.
0:57:58 minutes into the presentation "So clearly the writer of the Qur'an has the wrong Jesus, and the wrong Trinity and the wrong argument to make in refuting these things."
However, do note that in 0:26:45 minutes into his presentation "The word Trinity is actually not used in my knowledge in the Qur'an". Exactly!
So again the Qur'an does not attempt to explain the anatomy of a pink unicorn but I'll be damned if James White doesn't bend over backwards to desperately hold on to a failed polemic that the Qur'an inaccurately describes the anatomy of a pink unicorn!
Simply Incredible! I am simply amazed because James White (you can see it on his face) actually believes he has a very good argument and presentation.
His presentation is easily shredded in a public platform or a debate. This presentation is nothing new. Rehashed and borrowed information from Zwemer institute of Islamic studies.
Any way I stopped watching and taking notes after 1:20:00 minutes into the video as I got rather bored with what was presented. Maybe Allah willing I will come back and deal with what ever points remained. However, if someone has anything they wish to redress or feel was brought up between White and Joseph that I could try and answer please do not hesitate.
I will do my best to present the facts and evidences; to be measured and balanced. Anything that is good from me all the praise is due to Allah. Only the mistakes are mine.
Below is an excellent presentation in the Arabic language refuting the polemic the Qur'an mentions Mary as being part of the Trinity. Thank you to brother Ahmed (may Allah reward him) for making me aware of such a video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)