I'd like to make another point about the debate between Spencer and White:
White repeated a couple of things he's said on several occasions:
i) Due to inconsistencies in early sources of Islam, as well as alternative interpretive grids, there is no one true expression of Islam. Every version of Islam is an artificial package in which some traditions are arbitrarily prioritized at the expense of others.
ii) Apropos (i):
When someone yells "Allahu akbar", yes, you need to recognize that this person is claiming an Islamic understanding of what they're doing, but then you also have to be honest and go look when a Christian does something, don't we want to be able to ask the question how much this person really know, how well studied were they, what perspective are they coming from…we want to have that kind of freedom and we need to extent that freedom to the other side (31-32 min.)
But there's a fundamental flaw in that comparison: his argument from analogy only works if White goes onto say there's no one true expression of Christianity. Hence, an adherent of one Christian tradition may credibly and justifiably disassociate himself from words or actions by adherents of other Christian traditions on the grounds that their behavior or theological interpretation doesn't reflect his own faith-tradition.
Problem is, that's theological relativism. On that view, divergent theological traditions within church history are like poker games: Omaha, Taxas hold'em, and Seven-Card Stud are all poker games. None is more authentic than the others. Each plays by different rules.
Likewise, that would amount to saying Arianism, Arminianism, Gnosticism, Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism et al. are simply different expressions of Christianity, none is more or less true than the others.
But White wants to be able to say more than just "Don't blame me for the priestly abuse scandal–because that doesn't represent my own faith tradition!" (for example). He wants to take a far stronger position. He wants to be able to say that some Christian traditions are much truer than others. That there's an absolute standard of comparison. And along the spectrum of truth and falsehood, Roman Catholicism (to take one example) suffers from many fundamental falsehoods. So his analogy is vitiated by equivocation, because the parallel breaks down at the critical point of comparison.
I don't quite understand how White's argument only works if there's no true expression of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Mohammad wrote some rules down, but not enough to make a coherent game. His followers have picked the rules that they like and made different games. To simplify let's say go fish and crazy eights.
To carry the analogy further, suppose Jesus taught his disciples to play Omaha and the other poker variants have cropped up through the ages.
I can tell the difference between go fish and crazy eights, and I can tell the difference between Omaha and Texas hold'em.
My ability to distinguish between the games, and my ability to truthfully claim that I'm not playing a game other than the one that I am playing, is not affected in any way by the fact that Jesus taught his disciples Omaha.
It only works because he's comparing Christianity to Islam. His argument is that Muslims can be consistent in distancing themselves from jihadists because there is no single authentic expression of Islam.
DeleteWhite likewise says Christians are warranted in disassociating themselves from the actions of other professing Christians. And he says we should extend the same freedom to Muslims.
That's an argument from analogy. How is the comparison supposed to hold true of Muslims and Christians alike if he turns around and says that unlike Islam, there are false representations of Christianity and truer representations of Christianity? Unlike Islam, we have a clear benchmark.
In that event, his comparison breaks down.
"suppose Jesus taught his disciples to play Omaha and the other poker variants have cropped up through the ages."
By contrast, White contends that Muslims can't say Muhammad taught Omaha poker, and other variants cropped up through the ages.
Ah, ok.
DeleteI don't quite see White equivocating the short, arbitrary and inconsistent revelation of the Koran to the consistent revelation of the Scriptures.
It seems to me that they are two different thoughts.
Thought 1. Islam has no consistent expression.
Thought 2. Both Christianity and Islam have multiple expressions and it is reasonable to expect people to distinguish between the expressions.
Thought 2 seems independent of thought 1.
"Thought 1. Islam has no consistent expression."
DeleteAccording to White, Islam has no consistent center or core. If Islam has no consistent core, then a violent expression of Islam could just as well be true to Islam as a peaceful expression of Islam.
By contrast, White would agree Christianity does have a consistent core. As such, there is a true expression of Christianity in a way that's not the case with Islam.
"Thought 2. Both Christianity and Islam have multiple expressions and it is reasonable to expect people to distinguish between the expressions. Thought 2 seems independent of thought 1."
People can distinguish between various expressions as they like, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of Islam according to White. I suppose it's the distinction between ontology and epistemology.
If there is no true expression of Islam, violent Islam is not the true expression of Islam and true expression Islam is not violent Islam. The whole question is pointless.
Delete@Hayden Waring This is the typical equivocation of White, continually exchanging specific consistency with general one. The fact that there's no "True Islam" as a whole, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is, indeed, a true Islam when it comes to Jihad and other affiliated matters. People like you continue to mix the two as if they were the same (because you parrot the logical fallacy of James) when they, in fact, aren't.
DeleteIt would be like pretending to say that since Mormonism is consistent enough to evidence a nature of polytheism in its doctrine this means that you are saying that all Mormonism doctrine is consistent, that's an unadulterated absurdity.
Fact is that, as Spencer said multiple times, there's not even a single school of Islam that is not ascribing to Jihad, there's no narration that has a view of Muhammad (that's the role model for all Muslims) that goes against Jihad towards unbelievers and there are centuries of Tafsirs all delineating the jurisprudence and theory of Jihad and NONE of them have a view of the sources that are peaceful.
So, for what it concerns the matter of Jihad and similar issues then there's definitely a "true Islam" notwithstanding the fact that, as a whole, the same doesn't exist.
"Hayden Waring If there is no true expression of Islam, violent Islam is not the true expression of Islam and true expression Islam is not violent Islam. The whole question is pointless."
DeleteWhite's statement position is more specific and qualified. There's no *one* true expression of Islam. No particular development that's more or less authentic than another.
Hayden,
DeleteWhite routinely combines the claim that Islam has no single consistent interpretation with the claim that Christians should extend to Muslims the same freedom to disown the actions of violent Muslims that Christians accord to themselves.
Mind you, nothing prevents White from offering a clarification. If he thinks these two principle are entirely unrelated, he should say so.
As it stands, he claims that Christians and Muslims are equally entitled to disassociate their position from the position of violent professing Muslims and Christians. And he grounds the right of Muslims to do so in the claim that Islam has no single authentic interpretation. That's the supporting argument for his claim regarding (allegedly) tolerant, peace-loving Muslims.
However, he doesn't think Christians have the same rationale. So the comparison is deceptive and fallacious. Why does he keep linking the two?
Steve,
DeleteThanks for the clarification. :)
Calvinists eating their own... There is no better way to expend the limited amount of time and energy that God has sovereignty graced to us. Continue in the good work of making pedantic distinctions so that you can make sure that fellow Reformed Christians completely and entirely agree with you on the topic of Islam, despite the fact the person you are criticizing has fruitfully dedicated countless hours in making a gospel-centered contribution to reach and convert this community.
DeleteReformed and Thinking "Pedantic distinctions"? Do you understand that James allowed an Imam openly deceive the body of Christ, do you? Of course you don't. Furthermore, it seems to me that you White defenders always ascribe to others faults that could be ascribed in the same exact way to James himself but you never ever do the latter and always the former, how comes?
DeleteWhen then for even a single time one of you will reply to a factual point I will sign it in my calendar. It's practically impossible to have some of you argue the specifics of the argument, all you ever talk to is how James is a victim of the situation but as far as explaining why by debating the position, that's too much to ask I guess.
"Reformed and Thinking Calvinists eating their own... There is no better way to expend the limited amount of time and energy that God has sovereignty graced to us."
DeleteAnd why are you expending the limited amount of time and energy that God has sovereignly graced you with by surfing the net?
BTW, that's not what I spend most of my time on.
"Continue in the good work of making pedantic distinctions…"
Demonstrate that these are "pedantic" distinctions.
"so that you can make sure that fellow Reformed Christians completely and entirely agree with you on the topic of Islam"
As opposed to White's sophistical distinctions?
"despite the fact the person you are criticizing has fruitfully dedicated countless hours in making a gospel-centered contribution to reach and convert this community."
Not to mention the countless hours he expends attacking people who disagree with him.
Steve,
DeleteThank you for the response.
"And why are you expending the limited amount of time and energy that God has sovereignly graced you with by surfing the net?"
Is my comment a waste of time? No. My hope is, by God's grace, you can have a small dose of contrition (I'm hoping as a Christian that can happen to you, at least once in a while) so that you can realize that, even if White is incorrect here, there should be a general value for his work that has in fact advanced the gospel. To be honest, Steve, the problem isn't as extreme with you as with some of the other comments made on here (I'm thinking in particular Unknown and Aminorna where it seems there is a visceral disregard for James White and those who enjoy his work). Nonetheless, the purpose of my comment was to hopefully spur on a more outward looking approach to Islam. If someone as capable as you would engage in a more productive discussion here, perhaps there would in fact be more fruit than stoking the flames of Reformed vs. Reformed factionalism.
Demonstrate that these are "pedantic" distinctions.
Upon reading this, honestly, yes, I felt that the claim that White has engaging in equivocation here is pedantic. White himself makes two separate claims: (1) Islam has no consistent source material in the Koran, (2) Islam has different traditions. These two are not necessarily connected in the same way that: (1) Christianity has a consistent source material in the Scriptures, (2) Christianity has different traditions. Whites intention in focusing on (1) is to emphasize that the Korean is short, organizes itself completely non-chronologically, and has almost no historical marking data to contextualize its meaning. This is why Islam requires hadith in order to make heads or tails out of such an unclear and vague source. His point in emphasizing (2) is that as Christians we should disagree with Muslims using charity and intelligence, not lumping all Muslims into a monolithic group. Making distinctions enables us to criticize Islam better. There is no equivocation behind the intentions of Dr. White in making both of these two points, and your attempt to make one in my opinion is somewhat pedantic. I certainly would not call this a "sophistical distinction."
Either way, Steve, this is not meant to just dismiss what you are saying. Perhaps my use of the word "pedantic" is misleading here insofar as it is too dismissive of you. I feel the actual questions you are asking are valid ones, but I feel the community here is not showing White very much charity and it is the latter fact that concerns me far more.
"Not to mention the countless hours he expends attacking people who disagree with him."
White does expend a lot of time attacking people who disagree with him. Usually, however, they are not Reformed: typically, White is emphasizing the gospel, which is only clarified and seen in its purest form via Calvinism. Does White criticize others too often? Perhaps, yes. Does he criticize other Calvinists who are aiming at bringing the gospel to false religions? I don't recall him ever doing that and if he did, then I would certainly be willing to apply the same measured criticism to him.
Aminorna,
DeleteI am not a collective and ubiquitous "White defender." There is no need to refer to me in the plural "you," as though I identify myself with such a group. I am fairly sure that you have never met me, nor do you have any idea where I stand on most things. This kind of rhetoric is not very helpful in convincing me or any observer that you are in the right.
What is your specific example of White allowing an Imam to deceive Christians? If you are referring to the fact he invited an Imam to speak in a Church, I think it is highly debatable that White was allowing wanton deception.
I'm not sure if White has engaged in pedantic criticism of other Calvinists in their discussion of other cults or false religions. I am not aware of when this occurred, but if it has, I would also consider this a waste if time. I hope as Reformed Christians we can at least have the grace to see past the minor faults of other Calvinists, especially when the individual has done much good work in converting a false religion.
Since your post mentioned signing your calendar, I have a suggestion. Instead, every time a fellow Calvinist does something to spread the gospel, you could sign your calendar and, perhaps, pray for them? I do not assume to know how much time you have engaged in praying for White verses criticism him, but this would probably be a beneficial spiritual practice. Perhaps Reformed theology would have spread much faster in the history of the Church if Reformed scholastics didn't allow the gospel-flame of England, France, Holland, and Switzerland to almost completely die out, while the entire time dedicating a vast amount of their energy on debates about the order of the decrees of God, or criticizing one another for their views on sacramentalism. Yes, nuanced questions are both valid and important, but they are not worth our time if they are unaccompanied by the love of Christ. I personally see no edifying goal nor Christian charity behind parochial White-bashing sentiments on a possible inconsistency or a minute nuance that he has not made about Islam. If such remarks were visibly made in charity, alongside a common mission for the gospel, I would have no criticism. However, these inward-turning, intra-Calvinist criticisms in my opinion are a waste of our time and energy. Both Steve and White are very smart, eloquent and capable Reformed Christians, and my hope is that together, in a common mission, they can have an outward-turning mindset which spreads the gospel, rather than merely engaging in in-house fighting.
Reformed and Thinking
Delete"I am not a collective and ubiquitous "White defender." "
And yet here you are, defending White and with the same exact modus operandi such a "collective" uses. Coincidences are such wonderful things: taken singulartly they amount to nothing but when taken all together they become exactly like empirical proof.
"What is your specific example of White allowing an Imam to deceive Christians?"
Sometimes I'm left speechelss and this instance is one of them. It takes an absurd amount of willful denial to not recognize such a thing at this point as there are numerous videos dissecting one after another the lies of Qadhi with documentation (and, btw, none of White defenders even ever tried to try to refute such proofs because they know they can't, they do instead what you are doing here, i.e. pretend that nothing happened in typical "erase and rewind" style). But anyway, since you asked me an example, I will give you an easy one that doesn't even require knowledge of Islamic doctrine to recognize: Qadhi stated that "nothing like ISIS ever happened in the 14 centuries of the history of Islam". This is such a blatant lie that you just need even a shred of knowledge in history to refute. In fact you just need to read something very basic like the "Medieval Iberia" (a collection of historical documentation of the period) to prove how false such a statement is. For how I see it there are only two options for what it concerns Dr. White here: or he is totally ignorant himself of not only Islamic doctrine but even basic history of the period (in which I case I wonder why he insists to pretend to be someone that is in a position to do these "dialogues" to begin with) or he willfully allowed Qadhi to deceive the audience for personal convenience. Now that I've given you an example (and there are countless others, this is just the easier one that everyone, even those not knowing Islamic doctrine can recognize) let's see how you *factually* refute it. It will be interesting to see what you will come up with.
"I'm not sure if White has engaged in pedantic criticism of other Calvinists in their discussion of other cults or false religions."
Apart that it is NOT "pedantic criticism" because the matter goes deeply inside the argument of compromising the Gospel for temporal benefits he does so in the same exact way others are doing it, i.e. with this back and forth that is going on at the moment. Strangely enough you seem to focus only on the other side, who knows why...
"Instead, every time a fellow Calvinist does something to spread the gospel, you could sign your calendar and, perhaps, pray for them?"
Why instead of being concerned about others not praying for James aren't you more concerned about his *personal* prayer life? Because what is happening to him is the typical result of not having a deep prayer life tied to a position of responsibility and leadership. I've seen it happen countless of times and it is even easy to recognize those that are more prone to fall into this trap: individuals that have an approach to the Gospel that is much more intellectual than experimental. These people are often great theologians and externally they are irreprensible, yet, inside, they have a cancer that by and by methastatizes more and more till it engulfs all the organism: pride. They are just like the Pharisess at the time of Jesus and, exactly like it was for them, they became that way because they preferred the ritualization over the substance.
Furthermore, but the way you talk, it seems like you think that preaching the Gospel is the only thing that matters, irrispective of the how and the costs. No amount of good resulting from evil can cancel the latter and if to "spread the Gospel" you have to compromise it then it is better to not spread the Gospel at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAmiorna,
DeleteI appreciate your thoughts and take them to heart, as I hope you can do for mine.
Again, I will repeat that I am not merely a partisan White defender. That was not the purpose of my post. There is nothing I can do if you refuse to hear me on that point.
You are quite possibly correct regarding Qadhi's statements, unless by "nothing like ISIS" he merely meant a modernized version of a global Caliphate. But as it stands, yes, there are plenty of examples in the pre-modern world of Isalmic violence conducted in the name of Islam. However, even if your point is correct, that does not imply that White intended to deceive the masses. Honestly, my issue with your statements here is not that White is a flawless apologist. My issue is a complete lack of appreciation of all the work he has done, simply because you feel he has erred on a few key points. Your attribution of evil intentions to White is, in my opinion, completely uncharitable and lacks any sign of Christian grace. White is not going around preaching that Islam is a true religion--he is actively refuting it. Does he refute it perfectly? No. Should we point out errors? Yes. However, we should also freely admit that he has done great work in bringing the gospel to these lost people and, even better, he has done it via a Calvinist paradigm. Insofar as this is true, he deserves your respect and prayers, rather than resentment.
I do not want to wade into either your prayer life nor Dr. Whites, which is why I mentioned that I do not know how much you pray for him. I certainly would not say that White has a "cancer" that is growing inside of him due to lack of prayer. Such rhetoric is completely exaggerated. Where does this come from brother? Why the hate? Where is the sentiments of Paul in Philippians 1:18? Where is the joy and grace and peace of Christ? I just dont sense it at all from your characterizations of Dr. White... (And yes, sometimes I do not sense such an attitude from White either, and that criticism cuts both ways!)
You mentioned that I only care about preaching, and not how preaching is conducted. This was not my intention, and if it came across that way, it is simply my poor ability to communicate but not my intention. As I tried to say by using multiple caveats (and as I will reiterate now): I am not saying it is wrong to ask such questions. Your questions and criticisms are 100% valid. They become pedantic, however, when they are accompanied by a complete lack of appreciation for genuine and meaningful work that has been used by God to advance the gospel. Questions like this become pedantic when they are mere criticisms, void of any productive capacity to advance God's kingdom. On the other hand, if people took a more charitable tone and had more constructive conversation, bringing a clearer and more powerful presentation of the gospel, then I would never call such criticism pedantic, even if it was highly nuanced. I hope that clarifies things.
God bless,
Reformed and Thinking
Delete"However, even if your point is correct, that does not imply that White intended to deceive the masses"
And what are the other options? As I said I see only two: or he doesn't know such a basic thing himself (please, do you really believe that?) or he allowed Qadhi to deceive for personal benefits.
"My issue is a complete lack of appreciation of all the work he has done, simply because you feel he has erred on a few key points."
I sincerely don't understand where you take this notion that people aren't appreciative of all the work James has done in the past. In fact I cannot remember even a single one of the people that made him notice his faults on this matter that didn't start by recognizing the work he has done in the past in the field of apologetics.
However, apart from the fact that it is not just a matter of "some little key issues" but this is something that goes deeply into the hearth of one of the greatest traps the Church can ever fall into (you just need to look at what happened over and over to Israel for a proof of that), the point is that James never admits to be wrong no matter what. For this people started to become bold against him, because it was a necessity to do so given the context.
"Your attribution of evil intentions to White is, in my opinion, completely uncharitable and lacks any sign of Christian grace."
And yet again I ask you (and asked before): what are the other options available? You didn't reply before so I assume that you just insist that White is a1 victim of the situation without providing evidence of why that's so. Or you really are pretending that James is so ignoramus of history and Islamic sources as to not know something as basic as the fact that the actions of ISIS happened countless other times in the past or he willfully let Qadhi deceive the audience.
"Insofar as this is true, he deserves your respect and prayers, rather than resentment."
I don't resent him for his past work, I resent him for his compromise and his pride that doesn't allow him to be held accountable in ANY situation whatsoever. In fact can you point to me even a single time in which James admitted to be wrong on something (even the most insignificant matter)? I follow him from more than 10 years and I've never even once seen the man admit that he did a mistake, ever. He always turns around the issue with sophistry to pretend that it is the other side in fault. Now, or you sincerely think that White is some sort of infallible human being that can do no wrong, or it is obvious that he has some serious issues with pride. And this is the aspect about which many of those that REALLY care for him and love him as a Brother are concerned about, so much so that they have no other choice to be harsh with him.
If you really love James as a man then not only you have to tell him the truth even when such a truth can do him harm (at least emotionally) but you also need to be harsh with him when the occasion warrants it. The fact is that White has been surrounded for too much time by a sort of cult following, a group of people that continually shield him from any criticism and boost his ego to no end telling him how good he is in everything he does. Sorry but that's what Satan does, not friends or people that sincerely care for you as a person. For these people White is only another Golden Calf, nothing more and nothing less. They don't care one bit about him as a person, they only care about him as an image. He could be anyone else and it would be the same exact thing for them. So don't ever pretend that it is US that are the source of the problem for James, because it is the exact contrary.
....
...
Delete"I certainly would not say that White has a "cancer" that is growing inside of him due to lack of prayer."
I do, since I passed such a thing myself when I was young and I've seen it in many other people as well. I can recognize the signs clearly, exactly like someone that has been a drug addict can easily recognize the signs of such an addiction in others. Even many Saints in the past talked about the same matter, not only recognizing certain patterns but warning others on the perils of a certain approach to the Gospel coupled with lack of deep prayer.
"Why the hate"
It is this that you don't understand. It is NOT hate, it is all the opposite, in fact. Real love (not the wishy washy new-age "love" that is not really love but masked adulation) needs to be bold when the necessity warrants it. A good parent needs to be harsh (and even appear "evil") with his children for their own good. In the Gospels Jesus is extremely harsh with his Disciples many times and yet He loved them more than He loved Himself. That's the nature of true love; like the wind it is gentle in the spring and fierceful in winter.
I haven't followed everything on this subject but I've heard White say that radical Islam can be derived from the Quran and the ahadith. Is there one true expression of Islam? The problem with that question is, if Islam is a false religion, then it is going to be inconsistent by its very nature. It seems to me Muhammad made it up as he went along. See the episode of Zaynab bint Jahsh. When you say that wanton violence and sadistic murder is the only true expression of Islam, you're essentially agreeing with ISIS. There are obviously millions of peaceful Muslims who do not accept the ISIS version of Islam, and if Islam is utterly false, upon what basis do we correct the peaceful Muslim? As a Christian you can correct others by presenting the Bible as Gods very word. But how can you point to the Quran, which is a false book, and tell the Muslim that you MUST accept this verse as Allah's word.
ReplyDeletei) Tacks, suppose for argument's sake that the Koran is complete fiction. Even so, there are true and false interpretations of fiction. We can debate the correct interpretation of a science fiction movie.
Deleteii) Moreover, even apart from the Koran, it stands to reason that Muhammad was a violent man, given his time, place, and culture. It would be pretty anachronistic to suppose Muhammad was hippie pacifist preaching a message of flower power.
As Evangelical Christians, we believe there are certain essential beliefs that make someone an authentic Christian. We also believe that authentic Christianity is true. As a result, we believe all versions of Islam are false. However, there are various versions of Islam that accurately represent different streams of Islamic tradition. Just because something accurately represents something that in itself is false does not make it true.
ReplyDeleteIt seems reasonable to draw distinctions between, say, sufis and wahabis. Your only problem with drawing distinctions is when Christianity is brought in as a comparison. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem I discuss in this post. I discuss other problems in a previous post.
Deletehis argument from analogy only works if White goes onto say there's no one true expression of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI would say that his argument does work, because he is talking about the perceptions that unbeliever have about Christianity (lots of different religion, denominations, RC, EO, Protestants, Evangelicals, the world even lumps Mormons and JWs into that mass) vs. the perception (right or wrong) of Islam, in order to get a hearing to that we do evangelism and those that God is calling to Himself (John 6:44; Acts 16:14), God uses the means of wisdom, graciousness, sound doctrine & "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15) at the same time in order to draw the elect to Himself. To argue that God will draw them anyway without using wisdom or gentleness seems to me to be the heresy of "hyper-Calvinism" (if anyone makes that objection to my point.
"I would say that his argument does work, because he is talking about the perceptions that unbeliever shave about Christianity (lots of different religion, denominations, RC, EO, Protestants, Evangelicals, the world even lumps Mormons and JWs into that mass) vs. the perception (right or wrong) of Islam"
DeleteThat's where the argument breaks down. He thinks unbelievers have misperceptions about Christianity they have the wrong examples.
By contrast, he doesn't think there is a right or wrong example of Islam. He just opposes what he deems to be hasty generalizations.
"To argue that God will draw them anyway without using wisdom or gentleness seems to me to be the heresy of 'hyper-Calvinism' (if anyone makes that objection to my point"
Which is irrelevant to anything I wrote. You're shadowboxing with other critics.
By contrast, he doesn't think there is a right or wrong example of Islam.
DeleteDoesn't the fact that right after Muhammad died in 632 AD, the Muslims immediately started fighting among themselves and slaughered each other? (Khaurijikes, Shiites vs. Sunnis, etc.
- Omar, 2nd Caliph - killed, Utham, 3rd Caliph - killed, Hassan, son of Ali - poisoned, Ali - killed, Hossein - son of Ali, brutally choped up by the Sunnis Yazid and Wuawiyah - ?
Doesn't that fact prove Dr. White's point?
DeleteYou're shadowboxing with other critics.
Delete"shadowboxing" no; but "pre-empting an argument against other critics" yes.
Khaurijikes
Deletesorry, typo
should be
Khaurijites
or
Kharijites
خوارج
I think what the vicious infighting proves is power-hungry ambition to inherit the mantle. Fights over succession, who's the true spokesman, are often about power rather than principle.
DeletePlus, Dr. Qadhi and other like him who live in USA can honestly condemn Al Qaeda and Isis because it is not a legitimate Caliph and one does not exist that has unified the Sunni world.
ReplyDeletethey can also honestly say (from their point of view), that Hamas is fighting for justice in the Gaza strip and other Palestinian/Israel territories, because they did not extend the principle outside of those lands.
Don't get me wrong, I think Hamas is evil and they use famous Hadith to back up what they do. "there is Jew behind a rock and tree, come and kill him; and "fighting against the Jews will continue until the day of resurrection"
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/139
That is why the groups like CAIR and ICNA can be in the west and support Hamas and honestly also say they don't support any Islamic terrorism outside of the Gaza strip and territories.
In that case it is viewed as defensive Jihad, just as Muslims fight against US troops, once they entered those lands, but would not do that outside of their land - like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I am not justifying their evil actions, I am just saying that that is their viewpoint.
"Dr. Qadhi and other like him who live in USA can honestly condemn Al Qaeda and Isis because it is not a legitimate Caliph"
DeleteBut that's just a technicality. They don't renounce the principle of jihad.
Jihad = exertion, striving, effort, contending earnestly - can be:
Delete1. Jihad by the pen - writing
2. Jihad by the mouth - preaching
3. jihad by the hand - providing shelter and food for the fighters (which is why there is a high level of soldiers hiding among civilians in Muslim wars)
4. Jihad by the sword - fighting
Dr. Qadhi and those in the west agree that live in the west, because of visa agreement and contracts, they can only do Jihad of the pen and mouth. (preaching and writing)
Dr. Qadhi and those in the west agree that live in the west, because of visa agreement and contracts (& citizenship is considered a contract/agreement that a Muslim must follow, as is American citizen), they can only do Jihad of the pen and mouth. (preaching and writing)
Delete"Dr. Qadhi and those in the west agree that live in the west, because of visa agreement and contracts (& citizenship is considered a contract/agreement that a Muslim must follow, as is American citizen), they can only do Jihad of the pen and mouth. (preaching and writing)"
DeleteIsn't it reasonable to regard this as part of "the three stages of jihad"?
Ken, why do you presume that Western Muslim clerics like Dr. Qadhi aren't prevaricating?
DeleteIsn't it reasonable to regard this as part of "the three stages of jihad"?
Deleteyes, I think that is reasonable.
There is an even more extensive article on that at www.answering-islam.org by Richard Bailey - who is a former missionary overseas for many years and taught some of the courses on Islam I took back in 1986.
Steve,
Ken, why do you presume that Western Muslim clerics like Dr. Qadhi aren't prevaricating?
I don't always just presume that, but, generally speaking, I try to go by a principle of "innocent until proven guilty when dealing with people", but of course, knowing what I do know about the history of Islam and the unity of politics and their religion, and praying for discernment and wisdom; and mainly in this case of Dr. White and Dr. Qadhi - because I am looking at it with a priority in evangelism witnessing the gospel to someone, if I already judge them without having any specific evidence, it interferes with the relationship and in my experience, when we come at people with that "in your face" kind of approach, Muslims are going to immediately give it back to us in the same way as they have pretty much assumed that all conservative USA Christians are prejudiced against them and because very few American Christians even reach out to Muslims, what most Muslims think about us is that we are all just like the Brannon Howse, pro-Israel 1948 as fulfillment of prophesy type of Christian who voted for Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. ( I am telling you that that is a very real perception they all lump us into and pre-judge us, and from experience with regular Muslims.)
continued in next post
part 2 about presuming or pre-judging western Muslim clerics, etc.
Deletebut in the case of Dr. Qadhi, I had heard about him from Dr. White's mentioning his material and stuff over the last few years ( maybe 7 - ?) so I listened to some of his YouTube lectures, and he just seemed to be honest, because he had 2 death threats from isis against him, and some stuff he indeed admitted and did not seem to be hiding problems in Islam or "prevaricate". He was very honest about the Islamic warriors taking women as captives and becoming concubines ("sex maid") - he even admitted that the Abbasids and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) were descendants of the wars after they conquered an area, pretty much killed all the men, took the women as wives and concubines, and the next generation was the result. For me, that was a stunning and refreshing confession. (though from my personal sensibilities, the thing itself - attacking in war, conquering, killing all the men and taking the women as wives and concubines, it was disgusting and evil) I even had an Iranian admit to me that he was probably a descendant of that kind of thing, but it took many years of friendship after his conversion to Christ for him to even admit that to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEa-cM2lS_E
But when we criticize that, those that know the Old Testament turn around and say that Numbers 31 :17-18 teaches the same thing. (and other passages in Deuteronomy, etc.)
I guess because I am looking at it with a priority in evangelism witnessing the gospel to someone, if I already judge them without having any specific evidence, it interferes with the evangelistic relationship. I don't think street preaching is the only way to share the gospel and I am amazed that many conservative and Reformed Christians seem to think the only way to do evangelism is street preaching or handing out tracts. My experience with Muslims for 34 years is visiting them in them in their homes and they coming to my home and we have a meal and talk - learning one of their languages and culture shows humility (not that I am, but I want to be) and breaks down barriers and we can then talk about the gospel after a meal and after the barrier is broken. The methods of Howse, Dakdok (World view weekend) and others who agree with them, and Sam Shamoun have created more barriers between our communities.
Also, someone like Sean Hannity of Fox News, and others (people at my own church say the same thing) say "where are the Muslims who speak out against terrorism? - They are out there, and have spoken, but it seems Americans are unwilling to even try to listen and at least not pre-judge until some kind of evidence indicates differently. Dr. Qadhi is an example who has spoken out against it, as did Shabir Ally and other Islamic scholars have written books refuting Isis, Al Qaeda, etc. and yet the spirit and emphasis of this whole reaction against Dr. White by so many Christians is to say "we don't believe you, you are doing Taqiyee" (dissimulation - "prevaricating", etc.)
I hope that clarifies.
Ken
Delete"yes, I think that is reasonable [to regard Dr. Qadhi's statements about jihad as part of the three stages of jihad]."
"Dr. Qadhi is an example who has spoken out against it [i.e. jihad]"
"and yet the spirit and emphasis of this whole reaction against Dr. White by so many Christians is to say 'we don't believe you, you are doing Taqiyee' (dissimulation - "prevaricating", etc.)"
Wait, wut?
1. Steve didn't ask whether White was "prevaricating" but Qadhi.
2. If you say it's reasonable to regard Qadhi's statements about jihad as part of the three stages of jihad strategy, then that's reasonable enough evidence to argue Qadhi is indeed dissimulating or prevaricating. In which case you would agree Steve and other Christians are right to be skeptical about Qadhi's sincerity here.
Sorry, I don't have time right now to respond any more. Contact me later or by email. ( I think you have my email)
Delete"Sorry, I don't have time right now to respond any more. Contact me later or by email. ( I think you have my email)"
DeleteThanks for engaging as much as have, Ken. I do appreciate it. I'll just leave it here as well.
"and mainly in this case of Dr. White and Dr. Qadhi - because I am looking at it with a priority in evangelism witnessing the gospel to someone, if I already judge them without having any specific evidence, it interferes with the relationship and in my experience…"
DeleteHow does that interfere with evangelizing somebody? Isn't the Gospel the same regardless of who you're evangelizing?
"when we come at people with that 'in your face' kind of approach"
Ken, one of the difficulties with interacting with you is your habit of dragging in baggage from other disputants that has nothing to do with what I said.
"but in the case of Dr. Qadhi, I had heard about him from Dr. White's mentioning his material and stuff over the last few years ( maybe 7 - ?) so I listened to some of his YouTube lectures, and he just seemed to be honest, because he had 2 death threats from isis against him…"
But as Spencer pointed out, that does't mean Qadhi isn't committed to jihad or spreading sharia; rather, there are rival jihadist groups. He belongs to a different group. Each group wants its own Caliph.
"Also, someone like Sean Hannity of Fox News, and others (people at my own church say the same thing) say 'where are the Muslims who speak out against terrorism'? - They are out there, and have spoken, but it seems Americans are unwilling to even try to listen and at least not pre-judge until some kind of evidence indicates differently."
As I've said on more than on occasion, I don't really care whether Western Muslim clerics denounce jihad, because, even if they were sincere, I doubt they have any cachet. The people who need to denounce jihad are political and religious leaders in the traditional heart of the Muslim world.
"Dr. Qadhi is an example who has spoken out against it, as did Shabir Ally and other Islamic scholars have written books refuting Isis, Al Qaeda, etc."
But, Ken, what you keep ignoring, as Spencer pointed out, is that denouncing a rival group doesn't by any means imply a renunciation of commitment to jihad or sharia. There's bitter competition for dominance in the Muslim world. Which side has the controlling vision. That doesn't begin to suggest that Qadhi or Shabir Ally are any less militant in their own outlook. It's just that they want their own side to win.
or, looked at another way, the fact that right after Muhammad died, they started fighting and slaughtering each other, after Abu Bakr's wars against the apostates (632-634 AD) - those that left Islam in Arabia - he had to subjugate and unify Arabia again, then after Omar became Caliph in 634 AD, conquering both Byzantine and Persian Empire - they started both killing each other - (see examples above), since it was all out violence, that too also proves Robert Spencer's point. But once the Byzantine Empire was conquered and the Persian Empire, they set rules for Dhimmi - ism and the 4 schools of Sunni Fiq and Shiite Fiq (I guess was in southern Iraq - it went underground for a while. Persian/Iran was originally Sunni - it was a Shah in the 1500s that decided by decree that Iran would become Shiite. The Safavid Shah Ismail 1 in 1501-1524
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_I
and once they set those rules for Fiq, then Dr. White's point about development is right. Islam is much more like Roman Catholicism in that sense.
DeleteI didn't dispute that Islam undergoes development. That's a red herring.
Delete