Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts

Friday, 30 June 2017

Yasir Qadhi Rebukes Robert Spencer and other Right Wing Bigots Attacking the Minister White-Dr Qadhi Dialogue



Many of you are aware that I had a dialogue with James White, a Reformed Baptist minister who has achieved a solid reputation amongst many conservative Christians. (You can find the videos of the debates in the first comment).

What most of you are probably not aware is the severe online character assassination and smear campaigns that Mr White has had to endure from some of his fellow Christians, albeit of the Far Right sector of this country.

Why would any believing Christian be irritated at Minister White, who was allowed into our mosque, and who was very frank about his beliefs regarding Jesus, the Redemption, the Trinity and even the fact that he believes all of us are going to Hell!? (Listen to the entire two-part lecture to get the whole picture, and my response).

Well, apparently, these Far Right individuals truly believe that Muslims are so dangerous, so evil, so deadly, that the mere fact that Mr. White can sit with us, and essentially humanize us as people who believe in our faith, entails that Mr. White is in fact helping and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Al-Qaeda and other groups (albeit indirectly - he is, according to the analysis of such discerning self-professed intellectuals as Robert Spencer, a 'useful idiot').

A few points to make:

1 - For the record, I did not personally receive any negative comments from any Muslim for inviting Mr. White into our masjid (although I'm sure some Muslims online and in other parts of the world might object). From our side, we all understood the need to have a frank dialogue, and that I speak at a Church where most people had never met a Muslim, and Mr. White speak at our mosque in return.

2 - I cannot deny that one of the reasons any Muslim would talk about Islam in front of a non-Muslim audience is to demonstrate the beauty of Islam, and hope that some amongst them find in it the true message that Jesus himself preached. And I know full well that Mr. White's intentions, which he has expressed explicitly, was to hope that some Muslims convert as they listen to him explain Christianity.

3- However, 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. If things persist and the situation deteriorates, that hatred will eventually be used to inflict violence and persecute our women and children and us, as the Japanese were here in America, and as other races and religions were at times of persecution in other lands.

I would be happy if any Christian who listened to my lecture converted. But if they choose not to convert, that's their business to decide, and Allah's to judge. It is not my duty to do anything more than speak.

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. Sadly, many innocent Christians believe these lies, and Spencer continues to profit from that fear (See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/muslim-bashing-can-be-very-luc…).

4- So, essentially, what terrifies Spencer and the Far Right bigots who falsely invoke the noble Prophet Jesus' name as they spey hatred is to actually see two very committed people, a Baptist Minister and a Shaykh, agree to disagree, even as they harshly dismiss each other's faiths and theologies, and argue exclusive salvation for their own faiths. That simple civility - the act of agreeing to disagree - is something that these individuals, wallowing in hate and lies and wanting the rest of us to do the same, simply cannot tolerate.

Hence, the vicious attack on Mr. White.

James, if you're reading this, know that I strongly disagree with your views on Islam, and that it pains me deeply, because I genuinely care about you and like you, that you have such negative (and in my opinion incorrect) views about the Quran, and about our Prophet. Yet, that disagreement doesn't stop me from having a genuine respect for your commitment and sincerity. And that is why I will defend you against your fellow Christians as they smear your name and accuse you of all types of falsehoods.

The real idiots are those who wish to provoke fear and whip up hatred between the two largest religions of the world. Disagree all you want, but live and let live. And if you claim to be a follower of Jesus, then as a Muslim let me tell you: you might want to start by practicing what he preached.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Refutes ISIS and their idea of Caliphate

How Folks Like Robert Spencer Poison White Evangelical Minds

For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White

Contradiction: Robert Spencer Runs Away From Muslim Debater Yusuf Ismail





Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Friday, 9 June 2017

James White Warns Churches Against Using Sam Shamoun

Sam Shamoun is a notoriously shoddy polemicist. His own people are now advising Christians against inviting him to speak in there churches.


Also uploaded here

Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?

James R. White Proven Wrong by his Buddy Shamoun

ABN, Sam Shamoun and David Wood Plus 'Stupid' Christians

Refutations of David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics, Answering Muslims)

Refutations of Sam Shamoun (Answering Islam)

Refutations of Nabeel Qureshi (Creed 2:6 Ministries, RZIM)

Did Prophet Muhammad Have Epilepsy? No. Dr Yasir Qadhi

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Sunday, 7 May 2017

Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?

Video also uploaded here

I am not sure whether there is something in Dr James White’s claim of Sam Shamoun repudiation of Limited Atonement theology was out of spite following Sam’s acrimonious break-up with James. We can’t be sure although Sam has previous form. Sam has publicly stated a Muslim, many years ago, who embarrassed Sam and attacked Christianity was a springboard for his anti-Islam polemics, which have now occupied decades of his life, so there is something in Sam’s character where his theology is moved by emotion – specifically negative emotions.

In British churches there is, as Dr Joseph Shaw speaks of, an emasculation of men in churches and I would hazard this makes many prone be excessively emotional. In the churches/church groups that I visit I do feel some men in those churches do seem to more feminised/emasculated than average British men.

Having said all that, Sam Shamoun is faced with the very real question of why has he not renounced the Trinity doctrine yet? If he can now reject Limited Atonement which has a stronger and clearer superficial case to being Biblical than the Trinity then why not denounce the Trinity as unbiblical ?

Trinitatarian apologists contend for the idea of the Trinity by amalgamating a number of Biblical verses together and reading into those meshed verses the doctrine of the Trinity including the limit of three persons despite Christians now openly admitting there is no limit of three in the Bible as well as introducing the concept of personhood which has also been shown to be an external thought added to the New Testament as there is no Biblical differentiation between being and personhood . In a nutshell, what the Trinity advocates do, is eisegesis not exegesis via imaginative hermeneutic gymnastics. It’s awfully unconvincing.

On the other hand, the proponents of PR/LA may point to one individual in the Bible and a specific verse to argue for their doctrine. They argue John teaches this and point to, what appears on the surface level, three pretty clear verses.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [John 15]

And John 10:

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Is Sam going to claim that Jesus believes Muslims are his friends? Sam, do you believe your god died for us and considers us his friends?

Sam, does this mean, you believe the man you consider to be God believes Muslims and other non-Christians whom you believe to be the sons of Satan are the friends of your god? Do you not think there’s a contradiction here? And what of your prophet (Paul of Tarsus) who cursed people who did not believe the same as him, do you believe he was cursing the sheep and friends of Jesus?

And what about the Jews and Romans who were purportedly behind the crucifixion of Jesus, do you believe they were Jesus’ friends and Jesus died for them?

Notice how the advocates of Limited Atonement can argue simply from certain NT texts and can ask questions which make the Christian opposition appear contradictory.

Trinitarian apologists cannot argue simply from the NT. They can’t point to a specific verse nor can they point to a specific author or individual in the Bible to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity. So much so that even Paul of Tarsus isn’t even thought of as a Trinitarian:

If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way. [Paula Fredricksen] 

The same obviously can be said of Jesus and his disciples: they had no knowledge of the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine was a construct that came about through later philosophy – it came about after Nicaea.

My questions to Sam have to be, why has he not rejected the Trinity belief? If he has, is he willing to go on public record? I understand he was racially abused for simply teaching the Bible’s age of consent but if Sam is consistent and has rejected the Trinity doctrine along with Limited atonement then he should be brave enough to make this known.




Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam



Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Friday, 5 May 2017

Sam Shamoun: James White Has A Shallow Understanding of the Old Testament


Has Sam Shamoun ever thought the idea of the Trinity is not mentioned in the Old Testament hence why folks like James White do not try to use the Old Testament to argue for the Trinity doctrine?

Perhaps they know they will get mocked by people who have some knowledge in this field if they do argue like Sam Shamoun.


Bart Ehrman Mocks an argument which Nabeel Qureshi uses for the Trinity idea

Also uploaded here

 Shocking: Nabeel Qureshi's Arguments for the Trinity Exposed by Dale Tuggy Clips

 Also uploaded here

James White would lose credibility if he tries to argue for the Trinity idea from the Old Testament. No serious-minded and informed listener would find those arguments convincing.

 Andy Bannister rebuked

Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity

Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability

Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban

A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?

Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges


British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Thursday, 4 May 2017

For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White


Video also uploaded here and here

54. And they [the disbelievers] schemed and Allah schemed; and Allah is the best of schemers.

This text is often cited as evidence of some kind of dishonesty on Allah’s part, but the honest reader recognizes that just as God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of false prophets as a means by which He brought just punishment on those who rebelled against Him (1 Kings 22:33), and just as the New Testament warns that those who refuse to love the truth will be caused to love a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11), this text could well be saying that when people scheme against Allah and His ways, they will find Allah is significantly better at that activity than they are. [James White]





Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

Adnan Rashid Racist Abuse Condemned - Jay Smith's Pfander Films' Radicalised Viewers



Muslim apologist Ustadh Adnan Rashid  had a debate with a lady who works for Jay Smith’s Pfander Centre for Apologetics, Elizabeth Lizzie Schofield. The debate was on divorce in Islam. Strangely enough Pfander Films do not have the debate video uploaded as I write but they did upload a video entitled After Debate Discussion. I’m not entirely sure why they have not uploaded footage of the debate – one would think the debate footage would be the primary focus. SC Dawah Channel (an excellent and recommended resource for Speakers Corner video  footage) has the entire debate uploaded here: part 1 and part 2.


I recommend you watch the actual debate rather than The After Debate Discussion which was haphazard and was a typical SC dialogue where both sides angled for opportunities to talk. Again, I am a little miffed to see the actual debate has not been posted (yet?) by Jay Smith’s team especially considering Adnan did a good job in clarifying the misunderstanding on the part of Pfander and Lizzie Schofield.

Nevertheless, the After Debate Discussion gave us another insight into the nature of a noxious element of those who follow Pfander Films. The comments on the video were replete with racist abuse and even included a veiled threat towards Muslims.

Notice the 21 likes! Calling Muslims savages is a way of saying Muslims are animal-like. Using the word “import” also dehumanizes Muslims alongside otherizing Muslims as folks who are not part of Western society when in reality the majority of Muslims in the West are born in the West. Racists say the same thing about Afro-Caribbean people. They used to, and some still do, say it about Jews.



Again likening Muslims to animals. This time this person uses the Bible support his hateful views on Muslims!
More equating Muslims to animals. More sentiment suggesting Muslims don’t belong in London (and the West in general).  This idea that all Muslims pitched up in the West from a dessert is ridiculous. I wonder if this person in Texas (?) knows Jesus (p) is a Middle Easterner.

This idea of Muslims following the devil is ridiculous but it aids propaganda in setting up a hierarchy of human value. Of course if you believe a group is satanic then you’re going to be less inclined to care when you read about a bunch of them getting blown up in the news as collateral damage or the target of terrorist thugs. Or even when a group of them drown in the sea while trying to flee war, oppressive regimes and/or economic hardships. On a personal level this attitude hinders one from having a non-pejorative relationship with Muslims in daily life.

What I always find baffling with this accusation from the “Christian” camp is how it opens a Christian up to serious questioning of their own faith tradition and community. For instance, Islam’s zero-tolerance stance on alcohol is better than Christianity’s you-can-drink-as-long-as-you-don’t get-drunk stance; we now know even moderate intake of alcohol is linked to some cancers and alcohol by its very nature is so difficult to control in order to avoid a level of tipsiness which lowers one’s inhibitions (leading to anti-social behaviour or speech) and with each sip it’s incrementally more difficult to avoid complete drunkenness . The question here for a Christian with such a depraved view of Muslims is why are Muslims who you believe to be led by the devil following a religion which has better teachings on alcohol than Christian? It’s a difficult question for the Christian. A related question could be why dopolls show Muslims to be better disciplined sexually than Christians if Muslimsare following the devil?



This is an old form of racism: against ethnicity or in this case nationality. Adnan, if I’m not mistaken is of Pakistani origin. This sentiment was clearly not isolated to one individual - 4 likes!


Notice all the likes! Pfander Ministries have previous form here. This is not thefirst time where one of their viewers expressed views in wanting to boot Muslims out of Europe.  This type of rhetoric was experienced by Jews and Irish -  in the late nineteenth century political powers in Britain tapped into the growing rhetoric against Jews and Irish leading to a restrictive Aliens Bill in 1904 (See Owen Jones’ Book Chavs). Right wing rhetoric can influence politics – this is one of the reasons why Islamophobes are so vocal. Again we are talking about a new form of racism and discrimination which has to be given a name, the word "Islamophobia" is at the head of the queue right now.

I cannot stress enough how the inertia of Muslims in Britain, Germany, France and Scandanavian countries will allow an a relatively unchecked platform for Islamophobes to influence political powers. Muslims need to get politically active – the easiest way to do this is to raise awareness of issues and talk about this type of stuff.  Chatham House’ssurvey publicised what every reasonably thoughtful person would imagine: those more educated and those who have interactions with Muslims in real life are less likely to hold Islamophobic views. As Muslims we need to start talking about these issues with Non-Muslim friends and colleagues – folks who would be more trusting of you than an anti-Muslim/Islam hate preacher on the internet. Don’t allow hate preachers to cloud your friends’ minds with anti-Muslim/Islam prejudice.
Sadly a lot of Muslims have and continue to accept this prejudice against them as something that is part and parcel of living in a Western society. This should not be the case. If Jewish, Irish, Black and LGBT  movements were able to impact discrimination and hatred towards their respective people Muslims can work towards this reality with respect to Islamophobia. Working together with Non-Muslims to raise awareness of Islamophobia unashamedly is key. All this right wing talk about Islamophobia being a buzzword of Political Correctness which delimits boundaries of criticism of Islam is red herring. Smart people should be able to see through it. Anti-Judaism polemics in the West would have contributed to Anti-Semitism: the classic example being  that of Jews having a less loving idea of God (thus in turn planting seeds in the minds of distrusting people in Christian Europe of Jews being less loving which ultimately watered the ground for Anti-Semitic blood libels to spread in Europe - even in Norwich!
How do folks ameliorate Christian attitudes towards Muslims?
An easy step is to call out the hate-preachers within the Christian community.  Sure, I am aware of intimidation tactics Pfander have used in the past but Muslims need to be willing to report abuse and Islamophobia to the authorities without trepidation. Pfander Centre have been propagating anti-Muslim rhetoric and they have been proscribed by universities and other forums according to Lizzie Schofield forIslamophobia whilst simultaneously considered to be extreme by other Christians. As you can see, there’s already a significant and politically active number of Non-Muslims who are speaking out against Islamophobia and what they deem to be toxic elements within Christian preaching communities. These are folks Muslims can join hands with.

Note: I may not have time to do a separate post on what was Jay Smith's and Dave's distasteful use of purported European anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment via the Chatham House survey, a video which manage to evoke at least one viewer to spew the old kick-Muslims-out rhetoric. Here's a blog I wrote on why that survey cannot be used by Islamophobes in the way they may think they can use it.


Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?

Cenk Uygur Proves Mulims Are not More Violent than Christians

A Few Thoughts on Jonathan McLatchie's Arguments for the Holy Spirit

Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim

Pfander Ministries Blog on Hijab by Lizzie Schofield

Mike Licona Rebuked by Muslims: Spreading Deceit About Shk Ahmed Deedat

Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Refuting Christian Fundamentalists Who Say Islam is from Devil

Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, 1 May 2017

James White Questions David Wood's Wisdom

David Wood attention-seeks by reposting empty “death threats” he receives from people behind usernames on YouTube which in all likelihood seem to be from kids. I say they are empty because Wood goads them and tells them where he will be. Wood, to this day, this is a strong indication those “death threats” are not serious. Of course reposting them helps with bringing in the donations as some Christians are raised on Christian martyrdom stories and think this is a sign of true evangelism.

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Friday, 17 February 2017

Ben Shapiro Refuted by Ali Ataie and James White: "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Minority"

James R White, a Christian apologist, responds to Ben Shapiro by appealing to consistency by stating most Christians would be considered radical too if the poll asked if they believed Jesus would return and everybody would worship Jesus.

James White Rebukes Ben Shapiro For Saying That The Majority Of Muslims Are Radical

Note: James White called the type of Sharia practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan "frightening and barbaric". I suppose, out of consistency, James believes the law in the Old Testament is "barbaric and frightening" too (a law which he believes was given by the Father, the Son (now known as Jesus) and the Holy Spirit)


Dr Ali Ataie on FB writes in response to Ben Shapiro's "The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" by also appealing to consistency and differing interpretations of texts:

Here's something I disagree with Ben on. It's amazing how that intellect can suddenly take a dive. This video is a smokescreen. Shari'ah law is part and parcel of every single Muslim's identity. Ben doesn't bother to define what exactly shariah is because he is fully satisfied with your perception of it as being a Draconian penal code from 1400 years ago. Ben is an orthodox Jew who no doubt also believes in the Torah and Talmud.

The five books of Moses are dripping with violence BUT... Ben has his own way of dealing with those texts... right? So what leads him to believe that the vast majority of Muslims do not deal with their violent texts in a similar fashion? How many stonings and hand amputations are happening right now in the Muslim majority world? Where's the data? Thus to say that a Muslim who believes in shari'ah is a radical is like saying a Jew who believes in halakhah is a radical... ALL of them.

Ben fails to define the nuances, immutables (thawabit), variables (mutaghayyarat), contexts, and interpretations of shari'ah that Muslims understand just by being Muslim. Have you read the Talmud? LORD have mercy! How does Ben deal with the homicidal, pedophilic, anti-Christian, racist rants of its rabbis? It seems that whoever considers the Talmud to be sacred is a radical. According to Pew (2013) most American Jews feel somewhat or very emotionally attached to Israel. Israel. A country that has ethnically cleansed its indigenous population since its inception and is now building on occupied territory. This is illegal according to international law. I guess all of those American Jews are radicals. Nice try Ben

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

Why Islam



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 3 February 2017

Was there "Taqiyyah" in the Dr Yasir - James White Discussion?

These comments from a young Christian apologist stem from an erroneous idea on Taqiyyah. Luis Dizon thinks Dr Yasir Qadhi may have been practicing "Taqiyyah" in the dialogue with Dr James White at a church.



Come on folks, which other group has to deal with this wild-eyed idea that we (Muslims) go around lying ("practicing Taqiyyah") when we talk about our faith? These misconceptions are the product of anti-Muslim propaganda - clearly it's far-reaching and is affecting young Christians in Canada like Luis Dizon. I know there is a bunch of anti-Islam Christian polemicists who propagate such propaganda about the concept of Taqiyya so, sadly, it's not surprising to come across this misconception amongst young Christians.

Let's have a stab at challenging this to help alleviate this problem. Here are Luis' comments:

Furthermore, there is a concern that Sh. Qadhi may be willfully deceiving the people listening because of the Islamic concept of Taqiyyah (dissimulation)...

 ...And I would like to bring up the topic of Taqiyyah briefly, because I know that that is always on everyone's minds whenever a Muslim preacher or apologist is speaking. I am not unaware that the doctrine of Taqiyyah exists. Was Sh. Qadhi practicing it, or was he not? I'm not going to rule it out, but at the same time, I'd like to remind everyone that we who believe in the principles of justice and fairness adhere to the idea of the presumption of innocence. In other words, you cannot accuse someone of being a liar or deceiver if you don't have any evidence to prove it. If you think that Sh. Qadhi was deliberately misrepresenting what he really thinks, then present your evidence. Having listened to Sh. Qadhi many times, not just in these dialogues but also in his lectures and khutbahs, I have no reason to believe that he is the kind of person who would go around intentionally deceiving people. Maybe he is, but we cannot prove it.

I'd refer Luis and others who may have come across propaganda material from anti-Muslim sources on the concept of Taqiyya to more scholarly authority. In this snippet of an old blog piece I used R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers)  and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”.

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.” [1]

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).” [2]

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal.

Sadly, the propagandists – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonize Muslims – have misapplied this term in their propaganda claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the non-Muslisms”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hidjra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death” [1]

So, this makes a mockery of the suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)?

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.” [2]

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.” [1]

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution

[1] Article by R. Strothmann, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Fourth impression, 1995, E.J. Brill Leiden. New York. Koln p. 561 - 562

[2] The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Revised Edition, Cyril Glasse, Stacey International, 2001, p450-451.

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Jonathan McLatchie's Comments on the Apologetics Academy: Orthodox or Heretical?

I suspect Jonathan may have evolved his thoughts on the number of wills Jesus has after the discussion with Mansur. A few months ago, Jonathan did produce a blog post in response to some chatter around his statement to Mansur (i.e.  Jesus has "one will, not two"). In his blog article he has conflated “will” with “desire/urge”.
He has the same mistaken conflation in his discussion with Dr Tony Costa and Paul Williams as highlighted in the clip of him  presenting his thoughts (after Paul Williams had left the room) to Dr Tony Costa. Yes, I know Dr Costa agreed with him but he’s mistaken too albeit his “yes” in agreement with Jonathan seemed a bit unsure. Perhaps he didn’t quite catch Jonathan’s misunderstanding.
In any case, I strongly suspect Dr Costa, in his preparation for his recent debate with Robert Sungenis, watched Dr White’s debate with Robert Sungenis and thus repeated Dr White in asserting the belief Jesus has two wills is orthodox – I don’t think he has researched or thought it through himself (which is not a criticism as this is a very little-known area in Trinitarian Christian theology).
I’ve clipped all the relevant comments in the new video below including Dr James White’s comments clearly teaching the idea of Jesus having two wills is orthodox (and the idea of one will is unorthodox).
Let’s go through some bits from Jonathan McLatchie’s article whilst we’re at it.
JM: I believe that, in one sense, Jesus could be said to have two wills; in another sense, Jesus could be said to have only one will. If by saying that Jesus possesses two distinct wills you mean that He possesses two separate centers of consciousness which conflict in their intentions and will, then such a view collapses into Nestorianism, a well known fifth century heresy which maintains that Jesus is two persons.  At Speaker's Corner, Muslim polemicist Mansoor Ahmed asked me whether the human will of Jesus worships the divine will of Jesus. Thus, it was clear to me that by saying that Jesus possesses two wills, Mansoor meant it in the heretical Nestorian sense. In this sense, Jesus only possesses a single will. Yes, he most definitely possesses two natures. But to suggest that Jesus has two separate and conflicting wills seems to me to be virtually indistinguishable from Nestorianism.
What you’re doing here, Jonathan, is mixing up definitions and terms. It’s really loose language. To say Jesus has only “one will not two” to Mansur just to express the idea that the two wills don’t conflict is careless use of language to say the least To express your idea, why not just say “I believe he has two wills, one divine and one human, but those two wills agree with each other”?  (NOTE: Jonathan later puts forward an example from the NT showing the wills don't agree with each other).
That would avoid all the finger-pointing and cries of “heretic”, right?
And I don’t think it’s clear Mansur was driving at the wills not being in agreement so I have reservations when it comes to your reasoning explaining why  you said what you did did to Mansur. I think Mansur was driving at the same point Dr Bart Ehrman hints at. Bart Ehrman writes the following when asked why there was such an opposition in the first 1000 years of Christianity to the idea of Jesus having one will and one nature:
The problem was that he had to be fully human and fully divine, not half of each. Otherwise, it was thought, he wasn’t “really” either, but a kind of hybrid. [Bart Erhman]
Herein is the issue. If one maintains there are two natures with respect to Jesus then each nature will be said to have a separate consciousness (i.e. will) otherwise the natures (both human and divine) would be considered incomplete. Quite perceptively, this seems to be one of the observations Mansur brings to the fore in his discussion with Jonathan.
JM: In another sense, however, Jesus can be said to have two wills. This is clearly seen, for instance, at Jesus' temptation (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4), in which Jesus, according to Hebrews 4 "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." One might ask, if I am saying that Jesus possesses only one will, then how can He have been tempted? After all, God cannot sin. In response to this, I would point out that even a single person can have a complexity of will. For example, a sailor drifting at sea might desire to drink the sea water in order to quench his thirst, and yet at the same time know that drinking the salt water will only worsen his thirst. In a similar way, Christ -- being fully and completely human -- possessed human desires, such as the desire to not be hungry. At the same time, however, he knew that it would be sinful for him to turn the stones into bread as the Devil has tempted him to do, and so he did not succumb to the temptation. Thus, insofar as it is possible for a single person to possess a complexity of will, Jesus possessed a complexity of will.
Jonathan, this idea of “complexity of will” is just a conflation between will and desire on your part. I think you’re basing arguments on flawed definitions and understandings of terms and words here.
I think Jonathan has a mistaken understanding of the concept of “will”, he’s confusing it with natural urges/desires.
“Will” doesn’t refer to “desire”. “Will” refers to a centre of consciousness. For a human it’s effectively the capacity to process desire (and reason) to act/think decisively.
In order to be considered fully human, orthodox Christians insist Jesus  has a human will, the same applies to the idea of his divine nature (thus they insist Jesus had a divine will too). To say Jesus only had one will would open the door to folks who maintain monophysitism and/or monothelitism as the divine and human natures  are not considered complete or full.
JM: It was in His human nature that Christ bore the temptation to sin. I believe that the divine nature of Christ would always have served as a backstop to prevent Christ from sinning. Nonetheless, Christ bore the temptation in the arm of His flesh and overcame.
I think this conflation of nature and will is Jonathan flying close to the sun. Sooner or later he will get too close to the sun and ultimately plunge into the sea of “heresy” – perhaps he has already taken a dip or two.
This  is just another example of how the Gospel authors didn’t have the same theology as Trinitarian Christians like Jonathan McLatchie. If they truly believed the “divine nature” of Jesus would ultimately prevent Jesus from sinning then how can they describe it as a temptation to sin? A temptation to do something can only be a temptation IF the means and ability is there. There’s no good somebody giving me a bike and then claiming they’ve tempted me to travel to Mars! I don’t have the ability to travel there, there’s a backstop in place, thus I can’t be tempted.According to Trinitarians,  Jesus didn’t have the ability to fall into that temptation to sin so the assumption here is either:
1. The authors of the Gospels and Hebrews didn’t believe Jesus had a “divine nature” acting as a  “backstop” preventing him from sinning.
2.The authors of the Gospels believed Jesus’s human nature didn’t know he had a “divine nature” acting as a “backstop” preventing him from sinning.
3. The authors of these books didn’t really think their words through theologically.
JM: Likewise, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus in His human nature had the desire to not experience pain or abandonment and separation from the favorable presence of God, for "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). And He knew very well what experiencing the wrath of God would entail. Hence, in Matthew 26:39 / Mark 14:36, Jesus says "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." While, since He possessed a human nature, He felt the human desire to not experience pain, He nonetheless understood full well that experiencing the wrath of God would be necessary in order to provide redemption for His people.
In summary, the idea that Christ has two wills, I believe to be in error in any sense that suggests that Christ possesses two separate centers of consciousness (Nestorianism). On the other hand, I believe it is quite valid to assert that Christ possessed a complexity of will in the manner in which individual persons can be said to possess a complexity of will.
And this is the fruit of Jonathan’s mixing of terminologies. Confusion on top of confusion.
Jonathan says Jesus can’t have two wills that conflict yet here he cites an example of Jesus’ human will not being in-line with what the Trinitarians believe to be the will of the divine.
Think about what is being said here. Jonathan cites an example of Jesus consciously asking God for something in opposition to what the Trinitarians believe to be the divine will. The idea of Jesus’ human nature consciously asking for something different to what the divine wills is not only teaching Jesus had two wills but it’s also teaching the wills aren’t in agreement! Yet at the same he’s saying it’s [tantamoun to] Nestorianism (a heresy) to say there Jesus had two conflicting wills.
Lastly, I think we need to make sure our focus is not distracted to the extent that there's no thoughts on whether this idea of dyothelitism is Biblical or not - James White couldn't give a Scriptural basis for such a belief.
Here are all the relevant clips including Jonathan's comments to Dr Costa, Dr Costa's comments to Paul Williams and Mansur's dialogue with Jonathan at Speakers Corner.

James White's Comments Rebuke Arguments of Jay Smith and David Wood

How Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Usama Dakdok and David Wood contribute to the apostasy of Christians

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)