Shilling Islamist propaganda

Today I listened to Janet Mefferd's interview with James White:

https://soundcloud.com/janetmefferdtoday/7-17-17-janet-mefferd-today

This is the first and only time I've heard Mefferd's show. The first time I ever heard about her was in connection with her famous takedown interview of Mark Driscoll. 

1. Why do I care? I care because Islam is far and away the world's most dangerous religion. Atheism and Islam are the two most dangerous ideologies in the world today. It is therefore imperative that we have moral clarity on this issue. 

2. I have two disagreements with Mefferd. She began by asking White if there's a Biblical command or Biblical model for his dialogue with Qadhi in church. But that's a loaded question, predicated on a false premise. It reflects a defective understanding of sola scripture. Sola scripture doesn't mean the Bible is an encyclopedia which we consult for guidance on every conceivable issue. Scripture is silent on many issues, including some important issues. In that situation, it's permissible to fall back on unaided reason. 

3. Another mistake she made was demanding that White adjudicate a dispute between Spencer and Qadhi about whether Spencer produced a doctored video of Qadhi. I think that's what Mefferd was alluding to. If so, unless White has independent knowledge about the origin of that video, he's in no position to render an informed judgment on that particular question. 

4. Around the 14-15 min. mark, she played a clip of Qadhi endorsing violent jihad. White responded two ways:

i) He said Qadhi signed letter against ISIS. But the problem with that response, as Spencer pointed out in his debate with White, is that Qadhi's opposition to ISIS does not imply that Qadhi is opposed to terrorism. Rather, it only means that Qadhi belongs to a different Muslim faction.

On the face of it, it's intellectually dishonest for White to recycle a refuted argument.

ii) In addition, White said Qahi takes the traditional Muslim view that unless you have Caliph, you can't have jihad. But once again, the problem with that response, as Spencer pointed out, is that it fails to distinguish between defensive and offensive jihad. Although offensive jihad requires authorization from the Caliph, defensive jihad doesn't. 

Once more, it's intellectually dishonest for White to recycle a refuted argument. In principle, there are two intellectually honest ways that White could respond:

i) He could say Spencer is wrong, and here's why. 

ii) He could concede Spencer's corrections, and withdraw the two arguments he's been using.

But I haven't heard White do either one. Maybe I missed something. 

As a professional Christian apologist, it is incumbent on White to update his arguments when he's shown to be in error. 

5. White said his goal was to accurately represent Islam. Qadhi is believing conservative Muslim. White never identified him as a moderate. Qadhi holds to the jurisprudence of the Islamic faith. He represent historic orthodox Islam. Normal, standard Islam. White chose him because he's clear in his explication. He hasn't been totally westernized.

Now, in one respect, I think White's choice is understandable and justifiable. But in another respect it's in tension with his oft-repeated claim that there's no one true interpretation of Islam. But in that event, why choose an Islamist? Why wouldn't a modernist Muslim be an equally authentic spokesman? 

6. There is, though, a deeper problem. White introduced the first dialogue by saying he wanted to allay "fears" that Christians have about Muslims. But by picking Qadhi, the implication of White's choice is that Americans in general and Christians in particular have nothing to fear from standard, orthodox Islam. This, however, means that White has go over to CAIR's side of the argument. It makes White a collaborator for the enemy by acting as if standard, orthodox Islam isn't dangerous. That's what CAIR spokesmen have been saying ever since 9/11.  

By contrast, Mefferd presented evidence from the FBI and Andrew McCarthy regarding the strategy of stealth jihad. Bringing down the USA from the inside. And she cited evidence of Qadhi's ties to terrorist front organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. 

7. In response, White said he's taking a gospel perspective rather than a political perspective. It's "just about" the Gospel. That has priority. But there are multiple problems with White's stated position:

i) White is a culture warrior as well as an evangelist. He routinely wades into politically contentious social issues like homosexuality and trangenderism. He routinely takes sides in the culture wars. So why the double standard in the case of Islam?

ii) He erects a false dichotomy between evangelism and ethics. But protecting the innocent from gratuitous, foreseeable, avoidable harm is a Christian duty. Evangelism doesn't supersede Christian ethics. We have a duty to both. 

iii) Moreover, White is perpetuating a harmful stereotype of Christianity. Many men are repelled by Christianity because they think Christianity is a religion for pansies. They think Christianity doesn't allow you to protect your family. 

White is reinforcing that stereotype. In the name of evangelism, he is creating a stumbling block to evangelism by acting as though Christian are not allowed to take public safety seriously.  

8. There's another basic problem with White's position. After White's debate with Spencer, Qadhi posted a screed attacking Spencer and his "ilk". Among other things, Qadhi said:

One of my overriding reasons to wish to speak at a conservative Church was quite simply to dispel the utterly nonsensical notion that the majority of Muslims somehow wish to overthrow the government and install Sharia law in America. The truly terrifying reality for all of us Muslims is the evil nature of the hatred that people like Spencer and people of his ilk perpetrate. That hatred, compounded with the fear-mongering of politicians and the false patriotism of a disgruntled group, whips up the popular support needed to pass such dastardly measures as the recent ban on Muslim immigrants from seven countries. Islamophobic bigots like Spencer have fabricated this myth of us Muslims (less than 1 % of this land!) having desires to subjugate the rest of the 99 % to our laws and religion.

https://www.facebook.com/prosapologian/posts/1582686248422888?pnref=story

White reposted Qadhi's screed on White's own Facebook wall. Why would White plug Qadhi's tirade unless White is sympathetic to what Qadhi said? By touting Qahi's tirade, White is shilling Islamist propaganda. That has nothing to do with prioritizing evangelism over politics. What is White's excuse for disseminating CAIR-style agitprop? How does attacking Americans who view the spread of Islam with alarm as "Islamophobic bigots" promote evangelism? 

9. On Facebook yesterday, White and I have the following abortive exchange:

James R. White I really have no interest in revisiting this again and again and again, however, your error, Steve, lies in your ambiguous use of 'Islam' and the assumption that the term refers to a monolithic concept that can be identified as you do as 'inherently violent.' There are certainly interpretations of the Islamic documents that are inherently violent; there are other readings that can lead to violence but not necessarily so; etc. and etc.

You've fabricated a hypothetically peaceful Islam that has no basis in the entire history of Islam. Moreover, in your debate with Spencer, you invoked a counterproductive example of Muslims who appeal to the more tolerant Meccan surahs in contrast to the more belligerent Medinan surahs. But the obvious problem with that appeal is that Muhammad's early policy was a ruse de guerre. He was just biding his time until he gained the upper hand, at which point he revealed his true intentions. That's not a true alternative to jihad. To the contrary, that plays directly into the three-stages of jihad. That's the first stage. 

Claiming, as Robert Spencer pointed out, that Islam is meant to eventually dominate the entire world should hardly be a point of wild-eyed panic on the part of so many Christians…

What exactly do you define as "wild-eyed panic"? Do you deny that Islam is currently the world's most dangerous religion–by a very wide margin? Do you deny that Islam is currently an engine of terrorism on a unique scale? Do you deny that Muslim immigrants have introduced a rape culture into Europe? Not to mention other social pathologies. 

What do think were the civic responsibilities of Christians? Do we not have a duty to protect the innocent from gratuitous, predictable, preventable harm?

...who, of course, if they would consider it for a moment, believe the exact same thing about their own faith.

James, that's fatally equivocal inasmuch as we don't believe that Christianity was meant to eventually dominate the entire world by the same means. We believe in conversion by persuasion, not coercion.

Once that little canard is removed…

The "canard" would be your studied equivocation.

And how do we respond? By demanding the right to differentiate, and by making appeal to our founding documents. But if I say, 'Hey, if we do that, we have to allow the Muslims to do that,' I am 'soft' on Islam. Nope, not at all---just trying to avoid being a glowing hypocrite.

James, your attempted parallel is self-contradictory. You believe Christians are entitled to differentiate because you believe there's a true interpretation of our founding documents. That's precisely what you deny in the case of Islam. So your analogy is invalidated by disanalogy at the critical point of comparison. 

BTW, you have yet to explain why you reposted Qadhi's attack on Spencer, his "ilk", "Islamophobic bigots," &c. Do you agree with Qadhi's assessment? 

Rather than answer my question, White proceeded to block me on Facebook. Because he can't defend his position, he blocks people.