Pages

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Handicapping the Spencer/White debate

I'd like to comment on the recent radio debate between Robert Spencer and James White, hosted and moderated by Michael Brown:


1. The larger context of this debate is the current political situation in the Mid-East, Africa, Europe, the UK, and the USA, where Muslims are a source of violence and oppression. Apologists for Islam claim that critics are misrepresenting Islam. 

The burning question is whether the very nature of Islam is the source of the problem. Does Islam pose an existential threat to Jews, Christians, and democratic societies?

Is terrorism an authentic expression of Islam? Indeed, a more authentic expression of Islam?

2. One weakness of the debate was a myopic focus on terrorism or jihad. But that's not the only expression of Islamic violence. You also have honor killings, gang-rape, &c. 

3. White takes the position that Islam can develop in tolerant as well as intolerance directions. No particular development is more authentic or legitimate than another. In addition, he said his aim is to reach people where they are, reach them with what their beliefs are rather than enforce something on them.

Let's take a comparison: both Catholicism and Mormonism have undergone dramatic development. But certain kinds of development are inconsistent with the prophethood of Joseph Smith. There comes a point at which an intellectually honest Mormon should stop tweaking the Mormon paradigm and admit the paradigm is fundamentally flawed because Joseph Smith was a charlatan.

Likewise, there comes a point at which an intellectually honest Catholic must admit that post-Vatican II theology can't be squared with a divine teaching office. What we have is not a continuous logical development, but a dramatic break with the past. Compare the Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, positions taken by the BPC under Leo XIII, or Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, with subsequent positions. Compare Unam Sanctam (ratified by two ecumenical councils) with subsequent positions. Compare the Tridentine anathemas with subsequent developments. 

Protestant apologists rightly point out that these developments are illegitimate in the sense of sabotaging the notion that the Roman Magisterium enjoys special divine guidance and protection from serious error. 

Presumably, James White agrees with that. By parity of argument, certain developments in Islam would be incompatible with the prophethood of Muhammad. There's a point beyond which you can't keep tweaking the same paradigm. If the paradigm needs that much tweaking, then that's a flawed paradigm from the get-go. You need to scrap the paradigm. White either believes that Islam raises parallel issues or not. Does he take a different approach to Islam than Catholicism or Mormonism? 

4. White said Spencer's approach can lead to one of two things. Do we want to actually try to argue to Muslims that to be a true Muslim you need to become violent?

i) We need to distinguish between pragmatics and principle. People can relieve a dilemma in one of two directions. It's better that Muslims be inconsistent than consistent. 

ii) However, Christian apologists routinely take an opposing position to a logical extreme as a wedge tactic. Consider atheism. Christian apologists routinely contend that consistent atheism is logically committed to moral and existential nihilism. In theory, an atheist could be persuaded by the argument, then choose the nihilistic horn of the dilemma. Do we want an atheist to become a psychopathic killer? No.

But surely White doesn't think we should avoid pressing an atheist on the logical consequences of atheism. How else can we argue against atheism?

5. White said he can't look into people's hearts and minds to divine their intentions. True, but so what? In many situations, we're entitled to draw reasonable inferences about people's motivations. That's unavoidable. White is a culture warrior. He routinely comments on the ideology that's driving secular progressive and social justice warriors. 

6. White suggested that Spencer's position is inconsistent because Spencer is skeptical about the existence of the historical Muhammad. 

i) Spencer responded by comparing Muhammad to Macbeth. A fictional character can have a clearly identifiable profile. 

ii)  In addition, there's an elementary distinction between an outsider's perspective and an insider's perspective. Historians, philosophers, and Christian apologists are supposed to practice critical detachment. They have their own view of an ideology or religion, but they may also adopt the opposing viewpoint for the same of argument to evaluate it from the inside out. 

Obviously, Spencer doesn't have the same view of Islam that devout Muslims do. But the question at issue is how Muslims view Muhammad. Assessing Islam on its own terms. The inner logic of Islam given Muslim presuppositions. Even if Spencer thinks Muhammad is a legendary figure, Muslims do not. 

7. Is there a presumption in favor of taking Muslim disclaimers at face value? Do Muslims engage in dissimulation? White cited the example of Yasir Qadhi. That, however, raises the question of whether White is being played by Qadhi. For instance:

29 comments:

  1. I think it's fine and good for James White to be putting forth a friendly demeanor toward Muslims in his apologetic dealings with them. I also think it's fine to have bomb-throwers and polemicists like Jay Smith and David Wood. We probably need to have both types, in fact.

    Many of the recent criticisms of James White made by Christians on account of his demeanor have been silly and hyper-critical. However, his actions in this regard do sometimes venture into the realm of being overly-gracious and it strikes me as virtue-signaling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a place for the "bomb-throwers". One of the times I've been in London, the thing to do is to go to Speakers' Corner. People like Jay Smith would be there gathering a crowd. The goal of the rest of us would be to engage Muslims on the fringes of the debate/shouting-match.

      Delete
    2. The difference isn't between those who put forth a friendly demeanor and bomb-throwers. The substantive criticism of Dr. White by those who are familiar with Islam is that he either does not know the Islamic sources well enough on certain issues to accurately speak to them, or he is suppressing what he knows to be true for unacknowledged reasons.

      Take the most recent debate as an example, at least with respect to the question of whether or not Islam by definition involves a commitment to violently fight and subjugate people to the rule of Allah. Dr. White made all sorts of claims about the possibility of interpreting Islam peacefully, but he did not present anything from the Qur'an, Hadith, Sirah, or any of Islam's four madhabs to show that this was anything more than wishful thinking. This is especially telling since the necessity of doing so was implicit from the first minute Robert was given to speak, and it became increasingly more explicit throughout the debate as Dr. White was asked over and over again to provide any school of thought that repudiated the legitimacy of extending and establishing Islam through offensive warfare (BTW, even Islam's definition of "defensive" Jihad means something quite different than what Christians mean when we speak of Just War theory). Since Dr. White never gave evidence from any of Islam's primary or even secondary sources it is evident that he does not hold his position because he has good or compelling evidence to do so.

      So the criticism in this regard is not that Dr. White has a friendly demeanor toward Muslims (perhaps that is how Dr. White has presented the criticism of others, but on this, too, he is wrong). The real criticism is that Dr. White is sometimes quite ill informed and/or is being exceedingly disingenuous, all while claiming to be the most “consistent,” “fair,” and “best” communicator of the truth to Muslims. Dr. White certainly should find ways to gain a hearing from Muslims, but speaking ignorantly or inaccurately is not the way to do it. (BTW, if you watch David's debates you will see that he puts forth a very friendly demeanor towards Muslims....all while dropping truth-bombs, of course. In the end, for all his un-Christlike boasting, Dr. White has slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands.)

      Delete
    3. Anthony,
      I appreciate what you and David Wood and Nabeel Quereshi, Samuel Green do. I confess a lot of your material - I have not read or listened to your material as much, mainly for lack of time and also sometimes, it just seemed over my head. Sorry if I don't understand some things.

      I have learned a lot of good information from David Wood over the years -especially on the Hadith references, which although I had been sharing the gospel with Muslims for years, it was not necessary to know the Hadith until after 9-11-2001. Iranians are mostly disillusioned with Islam, and they are ready and mostly willing to listen, and get straight into the Bible in their language with them, so I did not find it necessary to even know much about all that stuff that you and Wood and Spencer know about and have been explaining to us all since 9-11-2001.

      In regard to David Wood's methods ("slain his ten thousands"), his recent video on "Zakir Naik claims Muhammad was a Gay Necrophile" was terrible IMO because you can help Muslims see the problems textually and exegetically with claiming that Muhammad is prophesied in Song of Solomon 5:16 without all the emotional bombast phrases and words and name-calling ("bomb-throwing" - !!*&^%% - we should not even use that phrase in the context of trying to evangelize Muslims !) No Muslim (or very few) is going to even click on it because of the disgusting picture and title. Also it was terrible because Zakir Naik did not really claim that, but that is David's own taking the claim to it's ultimate conclusion method.

      I think Dr. White's debate with Zakir Hossein on the same subject was much better and a better method of actually getting Muslims to listen and examine the text and substantive arguments. Dr. White dealt with the Muslim claim of Song of Solomon 5:16 in a much better way.

      I wrote an article on that and it was amazing that Dr. White got to actually say the things he did in that room in a Mosque building.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/debate-is-muhammad-prophesied-in-the-bible/

      Which, at the end of the day, the issue of all this, at bottom, is on "what is the better method to get Muslims to listen to the claims of Christianity?" (Dr. White's emphasis, which is what I agree with as priority of the church) The Church of Jesus Christ is not the FBI nor the CIA and Robert Spencer's emphasis is on the Jihad and Political stuff. I have learned a lot from Spencer, David Wood, and even some good material from Sam Shamoun over the years, but the sinful anger and slander and lies and the complete trashing done by Brannon Howse and Worldview Weekend and Shamoun type stuff and the amazing among of pile on by both conservative Christians who put patriotic and 1948 Israel as fulfillment of prophesy-political and security issues first ( I agree there needs to be wisdom and investigation, etc. - so one of my questions is why could the USA government not indict CAIR when they found all the "civilizational Jihad" materials of the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Student Association materials? Why are they called "un-indicted co-conspirators" ?

      I appreciated Spencer's points, but the thing to remember is that Spencer is coming at the whole issue more from a politics/Jihad / Islamic terrorism analysis perspective, whereas Dr. White is putting priority on evangelism, as a committed Christian who sincerely believes the Bible. Spencer is a Byzantine Catholic (eastern catholics that submit to the Pope - Maronites, I think.) They don't care much about Biblical evangelism. I am grateful that David Wood has not done what Sam Shamoun is doing now and for the past 6-8 months. For me, SS and BH and WVW and those like them who are piling on without knowing the details or context, discredit themselves.

      I want to make some other comments in another com-box. (about Spencer and Qadhi stuff)

      Delete
    4. It seems to me that Dr. Qadhi can honestly say that he is not for the Al Qaedah and Isis stuff because there is no a legitimate Caliph, and has not been since 1924 (the last Ottoman Caliph). From what I understand, Salafi - Wahabi types don't even think the Ottoman Caliphate was good or proper. 1500s- 1924. They go back to the period immediately after the the first four "rightly guided Caliphs" (the Umayyid Caliphate and Abassid Caliphate) - but even in the early period after Muhammad died, the Khaurijites (killed Ali, the first Shiite Imam and fourth Sunni Calip) and others killed Omar and Uthman, hacking them up, etc. one of Muhammad's wives poisoned Hassan, one of the sons of Ali, etc. Some Shiites believe Aisha and Hafsa poisoned Muhammad.

      So Spencer and White were agreed that after that period when the 4 schools of Sunni Islam were consolidated and the Jafari school of Fiq in Shiite Islam, etc. = but those schools of Fiq (Islamic jurisprudence), all agree on things like offensive Jihad, defensive Jihad, death penalty for apostates, etc. - they don't agree with Al Qaeda or isis that one can just do vigilantee-ism and take the law into their hand and do violence.

      Dr. Qadhi's point and others like him, would be that living in the west, outside of the Da Al Islam, once you get a visa or are a citizen, you are under contract and agreement to obey the laws of that land and not do violence. Spencer is saying but they are working toward the civilizational Jihad and seeking to get to the point where they can use our own laws to bring down our freedoms and establish Sharia law in areas and keep growing, etc. I think he has a good point on that and I am glad that he and others have done that research and investigation.

      But I still don't see the problem of having a dialogue in a church on a Tuesday evening, given all the other factors of Dr. White's ministry and integrity and that he has not compromised on doctrine in any way; and that the elders of that church can do that if they want to; they have not violated 2 John 10-11 by that. It was not a worship service, nor prayer meeting, nor a Chrislam liberal type meeting, etc.

      The way to engage Muslims is not to yell at them and call them names (like what Shamoun and Dakdok do). Not everyone can do what Dr. White has done; and not every church can nor should what was done on that Tuesday evening; but I don't see it violating 1 John 2:18-22 nor 2 John 10-11. Most all evangelism to Muslims is done in hospitality settings (meals in homes, small groups, one one one, calm atmosphere to talk and / or show the Jesus film, etc. and go from there). I am amazed at the wooden way that many conservative Christians and King James Only types are taking 2 John 10-11 to mean. Hospitality is a great way to reach people. Rosaria Butterfield's testimony and book "secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" demonstrates this, because some "communities" have a bad perception of Christians and that is good way to overcome that.

      see more here:
      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/answering-sam-shamouns-questions-on-1-john-2-john-regarding-the-whiteqadhi-dialogue/

      Delete
    5. See also here; and look around for more, if interested.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/answering-sam-shamouns-questions-on-1-john-2-john-regarding-the-whiteqadhi-dialogue/

      Delete
    6. I also would have liked for there to have been a part 2 or another dialogue with Yasir Qadhi on the questions that all Americans have about Islam, Hadith, Jihad, Dhimmi-ism, etc. and I wrote the questions that I would have liked to ask Dr. Qadhi, if there was ever an opportunity. The problem now, is that, because of Brannon Howse, Usama Dakdok, World view weekend folks and supporters, and Sam Shamoun and his supporters, Dr. Qadhi will probably never participate in anything like that again, and many more Muslims are going to just keep quiet and not interact with us on a friendly debate or dialogue level. The impression that Howse and Shamoun have given to the average Muslim is the same impression that liberals and leftists have of all conservatives - (even though not true, they still think this way) - they think all of us hate Muslims and homosexuals and are racists, etc. and use that generalization as a weapon to never get to know true Christianity.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/muslim-christian-dialogue-dr-james-white-and-dr-yasir-qadhi/

      Delete
    7. Hi Ken, I don’t have time to respond to everything, and much of it is irrelevant to anything David or I have said, so I will be relatively brief.

      “In regard to David Wood's methods ("slain his ten thousands"), his recent video on ‘Zakir Naik claims Muhammad was a Gay Necrophile’ was terrible IMO because you can help Muslims see the problems textually and exegetically with claiming that Muhammad is prophesied in Song of Solomon 5:16 without all the emotional bombast phrases and words and name-calling ("bomb-throwing" - !!*&^%% - we should not even use that phrase in the context of trying to evangelize Muslims !) No Muslim (or very few) is going to even click on it because of the disgusting picture and title. Also it was terrible because Zakir Naik did not really claim that, but that is David's own taking the claim to it's ultimate conclusion method.”

      Saul (and his supporters) didn’t like the line about David slaying his ten thousands either, if you recall (1 Samuel 18:8-9). Some even said the imagery it evokes is repugnant and David should be ignored. Far better, they thought, to go with Saul, the one who did not slay everyone but managed to ingratiate himself to the Philistines by saying they didn’t do and teach all the things of which they were accused (1 Samuel 15). I heard a rumor that Saul even invited Agag to explain his views to the Israelites before the tabernacle, but he might not have gone that far. In the end, David’s methods were approved and he prevailed.

      Many centuries later another Saul appeared. He seemed to like David over His namesake. He even applied martial terminology evocative of David’s exploits to the method Christ’s Church is to employ in extending His kingdom throughout the earth: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are [throwing truth-bombs and] destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). Saul used this language even though he was told that he should never do this in the context of trying to evangelize Jews who were committed to using violence to silence the witness of Christ’s Church. As well, apparently unaware of the popular idea that it would prevent people from “clicking on his books,” Saul engaged in his fair share of name-calling and used what some would call disgusting imagery (Galatians 5:11-12; Philippians 3:2ff.). In the end, Saul prevailed.

      “Which, at the end of the day, the issue of all this, at bottom, is on "what is the better method to get Muslims to listen to the claims of Christianity?" (Dr. White's emphasis, which is what I agree with as priority of the church)…”

      If this is the issue “at bottom,” then I encourage you to watch the following videos.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_XneEw-_uc
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyz1PUJWgxQ&t=426s
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1lakzsZ2XE&t=380s

      There is much more to say, but the rest is written in the book of the Wars of the Lord.

      Delete
    8. Edit: Amalekites, not Philistines.

      Delete
    9. I had seen the first one before and it was very good - showing that some Muslims have left Islam because of David's videos - good.

      Not everyone can do what David Wood does, most of his stuff is good; (especially the one he and Nabeel did about burning the Qur'an - that was the best one.)

      I still think Dr. White's debate with Zakir Hossein was 1000 times better, and communicated truthfully that Song of Solomon 5:16 was not about Muhammad, without the "gay necrophile" and the ugly picture of Muhammad (just inflames their anger) stuff.

      The apostle Paul (the 2nd Saul) was an apostle, and he could judge false teachers the way he did on those examples of harsher language as in Galatians 5 and Philippians 3. But that was about false teachers who were in the church, deceiving, left the church, etc. - it was not about people who are totally unreached, as Muslims are.

      We are not apostles or prophets, so the name calling and Shamoun style anger is sin and wrong.
      He and the Brannon Howse methods are a disgrace to the name of Christ.

      Delete
    10. I like David Wood's repetition of "name omitted because the penalty for leaving Islam is death" writes.
      Very effective.

      Delete
    11. "I had seen the first one before and it was very good - showing that some Muslims have left Islam because of David's videos - good."

      The videos actually show far more. They show that people left Islam PRECISELY because of employing the method that White's supporters, following White himself, keep putting down. I am not critical of Dr. White's approach with Zakir Hussain (something you brought up), but of his woeful ignorance of Islam on some issues, his willingness to capitulate where he shouldn't, and his nauseating boasting of how much he thinks he has done in comparison to others and how much more effective he says he has been. In spite of the empty conceit, and notwithstanding his errors, I praise God for the occasions when he has preached the gospel.

      Having said that, if you want to make the White/Hussain debate the point of comparison, David's video on the Song of Solomon has only been up for A WEEK and has been viewed more times than the White/Hussein debate has in the FOUR YEARS since it took place. You say the latter was a thousand times better, but the evidence shows that it has been more than a thousand times less effective in getting people to listen. Kind of a problem if the criterion is whose method gets people to listen and produces results.

      "The apostle Paul (the 2nd Saul) was an apostle, and he could judge false teachers the way he did on those examples of harsher language as in Galatians 5 and Philippians 3."

      Are you so convinced that White has finally brought to the church the standard according to which everyone else is to be judged that you are willing to nullify the words and example of the apostles? When Paul in Philippians 3 went on to say that he counts his own righteousness as dung in order that he might possess the righteousness of Christ, was that only relevant for him as an apostle? If we can’t follow the apostles as they follow Christ, whom can we follow? I think I already know the answer, but I shudder to hear you say it.

      I didn’t bring up Sam or Howse, the latter of whom I have never even heard, so your comment in that regard is really a red herring (as it was along with many other things the first time you mentioned it).

      Delete
    12. Lots of the views are by Christians, like me; I watched it. (as in Dr. White's debate video with Zakir Hossein - many Christians also look at that.) There is no way to tell how many of the views are Muslims vs. Christians. Lots of views of both are by Christians who want to be equipped.

      One is very short and the other is a 2 hour debate, so that is probably a factor also as to why David Woods has so many views - he had put out a lot more and more well known in that whole genre of.

      But just the title and picture of Wood's actually provokes clicking on it (which is contrary to what I said earlier, I know) I have changed my mind on "getting people to click on it" - actually the provocative nature of it calls one to click on it. Thanks. I now realize I am wrong about that, as far as getting attention goes.

      But I still say that doing the same content without the provocative ugly stuff would be a better method.
      Personally, Nabeel and Samuel Green have a better demeanor than that "in your face" style, but that is just me. Sometimes David's provocations are very good, when not over the top. I though the recent video was "over the top".

      Delete
    13. Funny you would bring up Nabeel. Once when sitting at my house with David he told me about another Westerner who preferred his own approach to that of the apostles and the directives given in Scripture. The man wrote David scolding him for his methods. He first told David that he needed to be more like the apostles and not so in your face. When David showed him how the apostles spoke to/about unbelievers/unbelief, the man changed his tune, saying: "You are not an apostle. You need to be more like Jesus." After David showed him things Jesus said and did, which once again smacked against modern sensibilities, the man once again changed his tune, saying: "You are not Jesus. Here is what you need to do. You need to read this book, _Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus_, written by Nabeel Qureshi. In it you will read of the man who led Nabeel to Christ. You should follow his example." At that point David thought the man was pulling his leg. It turned out he wasn't. Imagine that man’s surprise to find out that the man Nabeel was talking about was David-Over-the-Top-Wood.

      I would pass on your criticisms to David, but I am afraid he might adopt non-apostolic methods and as a result the church might lose another Nabeel Qureshi.

      Delete
    14. that was really good. I love Nabeel's book and David's example in witnessing to him. I gave that book to my father in law and he told me it really helped him get a heart for Muslims. now my mother in law read and my wife's sister is reading it and I told them about Nabeel's battle with cancer and find him on You Tube and there are 4 more people praying for him.
      Great job Anthony; you are very smart and so is David Wood - an amazing wit.

      Delete
  2. I think we're really good at looking at this from a Western mindset. First order of business is to protect ourselves. Second order of business is to safely figure out a way to engage Muslims. Third order of business is to pray about it. Fourth order of business to raise money. Fifth order of business(or somewhere down the line) is to actually try to share the Gospel with a Muslim.

    In the Middle East, the order of events is severely truncated and may include being killed. That's the price of being a Christian. However, Muslims of both the violent and non-violent variety, however you want to classify them, are coming to Christ in larger numbers than any news outlet will admit. Missionaries aren't going to tell people about it because they would risk blowing their cover. The point is that there is far more going on than either White or Spencer are doing. It is impressive that James White has been able to proclaim the Gospel in Mosques, even in the guise of a debate or a "dialog". That should say something about his methods. Would it be akin to Paul proclaiming the Gospel on Mars Hill? Perhaps. Maybe even more daring. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim Pemberton

      "It is impressive that James White has been able to proclaim the Gospel in Mosques, even in the guise of a debate or a "dialog". That should say something about his methods. Would it be akin to Paul proclaiming the Gospel on Mars Hill? Perhaps. Maybe even more daring. I don't know."

      It may be true James White has more speaking opportunities among Muslims as a result of his reputation as soft on Islam. However, the same reputation may put off many of his fellow Christians.

      Of course, I doubt White cares what his detractors think of him. In general a person probably shouldn't care too much what others think of them. That is, unless one is in the wrong or misled or the like.

      Also, ironically, White gives me the impression he's harsher on fellow Christians than many Muslims these days.

      Delete
    2. "Also, ironically, White gives me the impression he's harsher on fellow Christians than many Muslims these days."

      That may be because he's responding to Christians who are being particularly harsh on him these days. He has been pretty harsh on many Muslims in his ministry to them, but hasn't had the need or occasion to respond harshly to any particular Muslims. Something to note about James White, is that he responds more often to individuals rather than movements in general. His critics on this matter tend to respond to Islam as a general construct, so there are categorical inconsistencies in their criticisms of him (and maybe in his response to them). The idea is that those who are harsh against a generalization risk closing off individuals who don't align with the generalization from hearing the Gospel.

      Delete
    3. Clarification is needed in my writing: "... but hasn't had the need or occasion to respond harshly to any particular Muslims recently."

      Delete
    4. Jim Pemberton

      "That may be because he's responding to Christians who are being particularly harsh on him these days. He has been pretty harsh on many Muslims in his ministry to them, but hasn't had the need or occasion to respond harshly to any particular Muslims. Something to note about James White, is that he responds more often to individuals rather than movements in general. His critics on this matter tend to respond to Islam as a general construct, so there are categorical inconsistencies in their criticisms of him (and maybe in his response to them). The idea is that those who are harsh against a generalization risk closing off individuals who don't align with the generalization from hearing the Gospel."

      I think it comes down to whether White is justified in being harsh toward those Christians whom he feels are being particularly harsh toward him on Islam (and I'd say the same for his Christian critics). That'd in turn take us back to the merits/demerits of White's position on Islam.

      Delete
  3. "Let's take a comparison: both Catholicism and Mormonism have undergone dramatic development. But certain kinds of development are inconsistent with the prophethood of Joseph Smith."

    Isn't that kind of the point though? Presumably White and other apologists would deal with each Mormon or Catholic on their own terms, while also pointing out the facts of the historical development. For example it could be argued that some break-off Mormon and Catholic groups are more consistent to their history than the mainstream groups of these religions, but we don't assume the mainstream Mormon's and Catholics are lying about what they believe or are not "true" Mormons/Catholics. It seems to me that's all White is getting at. It would be unproductive and untrue for example to say that because Joseph Smith was a racist and that racism is baked into Mormonism's founding texts that every Mormon must be a racist and any Mormon who says they are not racists must be lying or are not "true" Mormons. Obviously Islam is a different animal in a lot of ways, but the idea of dealing with people on their own terms seems to be the most sound evangelistic strategy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Isn't that kind of the point though? Presumably White and other apologists would deal with each Mormon or Catholic on their own terms, while also pointing out the facts of the historical development. For example it could be argued that some break-off Mormon and Catholic groups are more consistent to their history than the mainstream groups of these religions, but we don't assume the mainstream Mormon's and Catholics are lying about what they believe or are not "true" Mormons/Catholics. It seems to me that's all White is getting at."

      That's the opposite of what White is saying. What White repeatedly says, in different ways, is that a tolerant, peacefully coexistent version of Islam would be just as true to the earlier sources of Islam as the intolerant, jihadist versions. One can't claim to be more authentic or consistent than another.

      "It would be unproductive and untrue for example to say that because Joseph Smith was a racist and that racism is baked into Mormonism's founding texts that every Mormon must be a racist and any Mormon who says they are not racists must be lying or are not "true" Mormons. Obviously Islam is a different animal in a lot of ways, but the idea of dealing with people on their own terms seems to be the most sound evangelistic strategy."

      I haven't suggested that I think every Muslim who foreswears jihad, honor-killings, &c., is a liar.

      I think there's a strong presumption that Muslim "clerics" in the west who foreswear violence are dissembling. Same thing with front organizations like CAIR. And that's definitionally true for Muslim terrorists in the west.

      When it comes to rank-and-file Muslims who foreswear violence, a percentage of them may well be sincere. That can be due to ignorance of their own tradition. That can be due to willful inconsistency. Some people prefer to muddle through life. That way they don't have to make tough choices.

      At the same time, even Muslims who may sincerely foreswear violence in the abstract might turn on a dime if their loyalties are tested. Given a choice, people typically side with members of their in-group.

      Finally, to judge by what White said about Yasir Qadhi in the debate with Spencer, White really seems to think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    2. "When it comes to rank-and-file Muslims who foreswear violence, a percentage of them may well be sincere. That can be due to ignorance of their own tradition. That can be due to willful inconsistency. Some people prefer to muddle through life. That way they don't have to make tough choices.

      At the same time, even Muslims who may sincerely foreswear violence in the abstract might turn on a dime if their loyalties are tested. Given a choice, people typically side with members of their in-group. "

      I agree. That's why otherwise peaceful Muslims still make me uneasy. Think of the mosques in Paris that were raided after the Paris attacks. Some were revealed to have weapons caches and plans for further terrorist attacks. Who would have guessed? Well, I bet most of the Muslims attending those mosques were probably peaceful people who hadn't murdered anyone and didn't intend to- but that didn't stop them from enabling their terrorist brethren. They are accomplices to their violent brothers' murders.

      Now let's assume those Muslims of those Paris Mosques were pressured/blackmailed/threatened with violence. Let's say they were forced against their will to allow those Muslim terrorists to use their Mosques as bases for their operations- does that matter much in the long run? If peaceful Muslims can be relied upon to cave to threats by their violent brethren into helping them, then why should peaceful Muslims be given the benefit of the doubt?? Shouldn't peaceful Muslims be willing to tolerate the uneasiness non-Muslims harbor towards them in light of this consideration alone?

      And this is all separate from the other issues of gang rapes and female genital mutilation- other violent acts Muslims practice that technically don't count as murder or terrorist attacks. Plenty of non-terrorist Muslims are still incredibly violent, even if they don't take someone's life.

      Delete
    3. "That's the opposite of what White is saying. What White repeatedly says, in different ways, is that a tolerant, peacefully coexistent version of Islam would be just as true to the earlier sources of Islam as the intolerant, jihadist versions. One can't claim to be more authentic or consistent than another."

      I'm not sure it has to do primarily with who is more consistent, but the reality of knowledgeable Islamic streams existing that emphasize a more peaceful perspective while honestly viewing themselves to be consistent. From everything I've heard from White his argument seems to be:

      1) The Quran and the Hadith contain both passages that emphasize violence and passages that emphasize peaceful coexistence. (Spencer accepts)

      2) Within Islam, both currently and historically, there exists knowledgeable and faithful Muslims who emphasize the violent passages and those who emphasize peaceful coexistence. (Spencer denies)

      3) The Islamic sources are insufficiently clear and consistent to resolve the conflict between the two schools of thought and the history of Islamic jurisprudence doesn't consistently land one way or the other. (Spencer accepts the former, denies the latter)

      and

      4) Because of this it can not be automatically assumed that just because a Muslim claims they do not support violence against non-Muslims that they are ignorant, unfaithful, or lying; and that the greatest evangelistic opportunities will be created by dealing with the faith the Muslim actually espouses rather than assigning beliefs to him based on one's own interpretation of "true" Islam. (Spencer disagrees, though I'm not actually sure where evangelizing Muslims falls on his priority list).

      "Finally, to judge by what White said about Yasir Qadhi in the debate with Spencer, White really seems to think we should give him the benefit of the doubt."

      White seems to believe based on all his interactions with Qadhi as well as listening to his lectures to Islamic audiences that Qadhi believes what he says he believes. I don't think White believes that Qadhi is in any way a believer in western democratic values, and I'm sure White believes Qadhi would like to see Islamic law rule worldwide, but from what I've seen Qadhi is fairly open about that. I don't see any reason to believe Qadhi doesn't believe what he says he believes.

      The article you link to from Spencer (an article written to back up the sinful actions of Brannon Howse, Sam Shamoun and others), apart from making the laughable statement that White is ignorant of Islam, doesn't really give any reason to assume that what Qadhi says he believes is different from what he actually believes so I'm confused as to how he would be "duping" James White.

      On a side note, I'd be curious to know how you would change White's evangelistic methodology in such as a way that the gospel would be more effectively communicated to the Muslim community? Do you believe Spencer is a more effective witness to Muslims than White is?

      Delete
    4. "From everything I've heard from White his argument seems to be: 1) The Quran and the Hadith contain both passages that emphasize violence and passages that emphasize peaceful coexistence."

      But that's just a temporary concession to the fact that when he began his religious career, Muhammad and his followers were outnumbered by potential enemies. He didn't subscribe to peaceful coexistence in principle.

      "it can not be automatically assumed that just because a Muslim claims they do not support violence against non-Muslims that they are ignorant, unfaithful, or lying"

      I never made that blanket allegation.

      "On a side note, I'd be curious to know how you would change White's evangelistic methodology in such as a way that the gospel would be more effectively communicated to the Muslim community?"

      Evangelizing Muslims doesn't require him to defend Qadhi or propound a hypothetically irenic version of Islam. That's a non sequitur.

      And, of course, the greatest threat to Muslims are fellow Muslims.

      "Do you believe Spencer is a more effective witness to Muslims than White is?"

      That's a loaded question. Evangelism is not the only Christian duty. Protecting the innocent from foreseeable avoidable harm is also a Christian duty.

      Delete
  4. When it comes to rank-and-file Muslims who foreswear violence, a percentage of them may well be sincere. That can be due to ignorance of their own tradition. That can be due to willful inconsistency. Some people prefer to muddle through life. That way they don't have to make tough choices.

    I recently attended a talk by some Christian missionaries to Saudi Arabia, and they said that this is precisely the way that most Saudi Muslims see things. They wink and nod while "going along". Many of them are glad that the real jihadists have left that country in search of the Caliphate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saudi Arabia is definitely a hard place spiritually. The people that you heard the missionaries talk about are fairly representative of many in SA. What we should understand about SA in general is that the ropes of Islam that bind the people are more like a thread these days. Many Muslims there are the equivalent of cultural Christians in the West. The good news is that our brothers and sisters underground are many in that area. Copies of the Injeel have flooded the land and there are many accounts of people coming to faith having read the Truth.

      Delete
  5. "Let's take a comparison: both Catholicism and Mormonism have undergone dramatic development. But certain kinds of development are inconsistent with the prophethood of Joseph Smith."

    That may be true. I'm not sure if we can put a "Sola Scriptura" ad fontes approach onto Islam and say that's the only true Islam? Maybe.

    When I talk to conservative Roman Catholics I point out the inconsistencies in post-Vatican II Catholicism in order for them to see that the whole thing is wrong. I would do the same with Muslims. Show them the whole thing is a mess because it isn't a revelation from God.

    I think that's the main point.

    I thought White's best point was that Spencer argues that Muhammad didn't exist. If Muhammad didn't exist, it would be hard to argue that there's a consistent, true revelation from Muhammad on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent blog, while Spencer won the debate both his approach and that of White are complementary and we'll done. It's the slanderous attacks on White by such as Shamoun we all ought to condemn.

    ReplyDelete