Wednesday, November 2, 2011

James White: Islam A to Z


Islam A to Z: Session 1 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.


Islam A to Z: Session 2 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.


Matlin said...

May God Almighty bless Dr. White!

Deleting said...

The first night's lectures were very good. I like how he answered the kid's questions towards the very end.

proof for god said...

Some good stuff. Thanks for the vids.

Haecceitas said...

I've only seen the first lecture so far. It was really good, and White's replies to the questions were mostly excellent as well. But his reply on the question about Muslims wanting to impose Sharia on the US was incomplete. Sure, it's very unlikely that Sharia would completely take over, but that doesn't mean that it won't have a more indirect influence in various ways.

Tatersalad said...

Leave Islam now before you are placed in the vice of death:

All non-Muslims are "infidels":

Search 4 Truth said...

I listened to all of it and it was a wonderful introduction for novices. The problem is to get Muslims to be consistent and use objective reasoning. Unfortunately I have never encountered this rare creature. I think they only exist in myths like the Loch Ness Monster.

God Bless you Dr. White!

simple_truth said...

I think that Dr. White went out of his way to try to be both respectful to Muslims while still delivering them a death blow of sorts with the information that he gave. He was very tactful at his approach. I commend him for that.

Now, will more Muslims start to look critically at their religion and history and not let imams and other leaders censor their thoughts and try to hide the negative aspects of Islam and Islamic culture? I think that it is the mission of Christians and others who see the danger of this religion to educate as many around the world as we can so that we can help slow down its growth and influence. We, especially, need to get the political dhimmis in our governments to stop catering to Islam; else, our cultures will be severely damaged or even wiped out by this cancer called Islam.

D335 said...

Keep teaching dr White!

I always believe why most muslims are "hardened hearts", is because they have nothing to turn to.

Especially when someone always
reminded them, you'll be in hell! Salat 5 times a day, or Hell! pay Zakat or Hell!


proof for god said...

D335: God can soften any heart and bring anyone to Christ - no one who knew me thought I would ever be a Christian and i know numerous people that seemed so hard, yet the truth of Christ came by the Gospel and the Spirit and gave them new hearts (Jer. 31 & John 3). the answer is the Gospel preached, prayer and fine apologetic outreach. so more and more muslims will repent and come to Christ when God changes their hearts.

Manna said...

I found the Q&A portion disappointing. Dr. White draws a parallel between Christian atrocities and muslim ones. He says "People have committed horrible atrocities in the name of jesus" and "christians who shell muslims with artillery". OK, what is he talking about? What are these Christian atrocities? And his offense at the shelling of muslims by Christians - is he expressing his contempt for the army? Does he think as Christians we shouldn't fight when attacked?

Seriously, what is he talking about?

There is absolutely no parallel between these supposed Christian atrocities and the 1400 year jihad waged by muslims against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone else.

The wholesale rape, enslavement and murder of non-muslim populations is not a result of how one interprets the koran or ahadith as Dr. White's answer to the boy's question suggests.

If one reads the koran and follows the example set by Mohammad, one has no choice but to slay the infidel whereever you find them.

Dr. White's need to bend over backward in an effort to be fair to the misunderstood muslim community was embarrassing.

andy bell said...

James white is a right wing islamophobe. He's obviously spouting all this nonsense against the greatest religion in the world because he's on the israeli payroll. Show us the shekels Jimmy!

(I didn't see the comment, figured I'd help out my "beastly" friends"

concernedforusa said...

Although the overall representation of Islam given by James White was outstanding, I have one comment.

After his presentation, Mr. White was asked a question by a lady from the audience. The question basically was the following: “How could Muhammad distort revelations from God which he received?” This lady and probably many people in the audience had impression that Muhammad received revelations from the God of the Bible, but he somehow accidentally “distorted” those revelations.

This was a good opportunity for Mr. White to explain to the audience that Allah is not the God of the Bible. He needed to explain the satanic nature of Muhammad’s first encounter with so-called “angel Gabriel”, the satanic nature of this “angel”. James White could say that Muhammad himself thought that he was possessed, and he tried to commit suicide several times. Mr. White, at least, could give a hint of satanic ungodly content of Islam. He could also speak about the “Satanic Verses” when Satan put his words in Muhammad’s mouth, according to Islamic sources. Mr. White could talk about satanic ungodly message of Qur’an. He could, at least, give a hint that Satan himself, disguised as the “angel Gabriel” was the originator of Islam.

Mr. James White did not present any of those explanations and clarification, leaving his audience with impression that it was the God of the Bible who gave His new revelations to Muhammad, but Muhammad accidentally distorted some of those revelations.

1MoreMuslim said...

Why are the Christians the only ones who are insisting that the verse " no complusion in religion" is revealed in Mecca? Christians and Dr White should learn from Muslim sources rather than Robert Spencer.

Ken said...

To "1 More Muslim" -
Here is what Robert Spencer wrote on Surah 2:256 at his web-site, Jihad Watch, under his Qur'an commentary. It seems pretty even-handed and fair to me and honest and he quotes several famous Islamic scholars and their interpretation of that verse. He never says here it was revealed in the Meccan period. Surah 2 is the largest Surah of all, and seems like a compilation of a lot of material.

Anyway, here is what Spencer wrote:

"Immediately following is the famous statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of ‘conversion or the sword.’” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad.

In this light verses 256 and 193 go together without any trouble. Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam so as to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude — but when they convert, they do so freely. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya that is paid by the dhimmis. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad."

However, Abu Bakr did not seem to use this verse when he waged the wars of apostasy to force the pagan Arabs of Arabia to turn back to Islam, because after Muhammad died, many reverted back to paganism.

What do you say to that?

It does seem that Islam forced pagans and atheists of the Arabian peninsula to either convert or die. What do you say to that?

Ken said...

Also, Pickthall, Yusef Ali, and Muhammad Asad (The Message of the Qur'an) all say that most of Surah Al Baqara (until verse 275) was revealed in the first 2 years of the Hijra before the battle of Badr. This is before the first Battle of Islam, when the fighting began.

So it does belong to the more peaceful Meccan period in the sense that it conveys the same sentiments and it is before the Battle of Badr.

Muhammad Asad says that verses 275-281 are the very last verses revealed before Muhammad died, and says that verse 181 is the very last verse of all revealed. So I guess that verse came after some of Surah 5 and all of Surah 9. (usually considered the last chapter revealed, which would abrogate the earlier peaceful verses and chapters.)

So Surah 2 and verse 256, is technically within the Medina period, but very early Medina period and before the Battle of Badr. That is very significant.

Ken said...

Also, Spencer clearly says that Al Baqara was revealed in the Medinan period at the beginning of his commentary on Surah 2.

"Sura 2, Al-Baqara (“The Cow”), like almost all of the chapters of the Qur’an, takes its title from something recounted within it – in this case, the story of Moses relaying Allah’s command to the Israelites that they sacrifice a cow (2:67-73). It is the longest sura of the Qur’an – 286 verses – and begins the Qur’an’s general (but not absolute) pattern of running from the longest to the shortest chapters, with the exception of the Fatiha, which has pride of place as the first sura because of its centrality in Islam. Surat Al-Baqara, “The Cow,” was revealed to Muhammad at Medina – that is, during the second part of his prophetic career, which began in Mecca in 610. In 622 Muhammad and the fledgling Muslim community moved to Medina, where for the first time Muhammad became a political and military leader. Islamic theologians generally regard Medinan suras as taking precedence over Meccan ones wherever there is a disagreement, in accord with verse 106 of this chapter of the Qur’an, in which Allah speaks about abrogating verses and replacing them with better ones. (This interpretation of verse 106, however, is not universally accepted. Some say it refers to the abrogation of nothing in the Qur’an, but only of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. More on that when the time comes.)"

I really wonder if Muslims actually take the time to read what Robert Spencer has actually written, or do they just label him and ignore him and call him an Islamophobe because they don't like the way he at least helps westerners actually look at what Islam really teaches and what some of its followers do.

1MoreMuslim said...


"I really wonder if Muslims actually take the time to read what Robert Spencer has actually written"

You can say that to Dr White, since you have clearly shown that Dr White was wrong. You took my remark too literally , what I meant is , if you want to learn Islam you can read scholars of Islam.

Last , the verse 256 of Al Baqara was revealed to rebuke some Muslims who used force to convert people. That means that Muslims were powerful enough to force people. Otherwise the verse would not make any sense. Dr White's theory is useless. Even if we consider that Muslims don't have power and they are minority, what the verse 256 would achieve? Will the Pagans stop persecuting Muslims because of verse 256? Nonsense.

Ken said...

1 More Muslim -
Dr. White did not actually teach that Surah 2 Al Baqarah was revealed in Mecca, (that I have noticed) but a questioner implied it.

It is still in the same spirit of the Meccan period, because it was before the battle of Badr and I suppose, before the raiding of the Caravans. ( I don't know exactly).

Even though 2:256 is still true for Christians and Jews - they can keep their religion in their heart; etc. However, not really, because no evangelism or missions or debate is allowed, so there really is no "nice" Islam. The Copts and other Christian minorities have been forced for centuries to just shut up and go inward.

Surah 9:29 is still force, it seems, and it is coercion for the world to submit to external Islamic law and be quiet and stop all evangelism and missions and freedom of speech and debate. 9:29 and the rest of Islamic history speaks loudly that Islam forces people to just submit and shut up. Pagans and atheists and idol worshipers have no choice.

Dr. White didn't take the time to go into that and loose her main question about the contradiction of affirming the Bible/Injeel - Surah 5:46-48 and 10:94 among many others, yet Islamic theology claiming the the previous Scriptures are corrupt.

Do you agree that Surah 9:29 and 8:39 abrogate 2:256 ?

Do you agree that 2:256 was before the Battle of Badr?

Do you agree that the Battle of Badr onward is quite different than 2:256 ?

Do you agree that Abu Bakr's wars against the apostates was forcing them to turn back to being Muslims?

If so, then 2:256 is abrogated. period.

Do you agree that Omar carried out Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and the Hadiths and Tarikh, etc. ( "I have been ordered to fight until religion is all for Allah" and "there will be no other religion on the Arabian peninsula", etc.

If so, then it seems to me that 2:256 was abrogated; at least in spirit and by the obvious history of Islam, until the modern era of the west in the last 100 years, where they have to emphasize that in the west in order to get a hearing; yet they avoid the harsh stuff.

Dr. White pointed out that Yaser Qadi admitted that if a Caliphate is established, then they will have authority to wage Jihad against all enemies of Islam and seek to establish Sharia law. And if they conquer, no more churches will be allowed to be built and no more evangelism or missions or debates will be allowed.

That really proves that Islam is unjust and wrong.

And that is what is scary about Islam.

1MoreMuslim said...

"1 More Muslim -
Dr. White did not actually teach that Surah 2 Al Baqarah was revealed in Mecca, (that I have noticed) but a questioner implied it."
Euuh , no he said it here

I don't think 9:29 abrogated anything. Read 9:4, there is clear command to keep peace treaties with unbelievers who do not make alliances with the enemies.

Ken said...

Ok, but do you agree that 2:256 was revealed in early Medina, in the first 2 years, before the Battle of Badr of 624 AD ?

If so, then it's sentiment is still part of the Meccan period, in spirit and meaning, even though technically in the Medinan period.

If Surah 9:29 did not abrogate 2:256, why did the Muslims eventually force all Jews and Christians out of Arabia (Hejaz, Najran, Yemen) and make war against the Byzantines, and Persia and keep conquering until they were stopped in 732 AD (Battle of Tours or Poitiers) and then in 1683-1684 (Battle of Vienna) ?

Pagans were not allowed a choice; it was convert or die.

Christians and Jews were allowed to live if they shut up and submit and pay the Jiziye tax, sign of submission and being a minority protected people ( Dhimmi - ذمی )

But in reality, the Christians cannot continue to be true Christians, because your religion said, "you cannot evangelize or witness to the truth of Christ or use persuasion or preaching or build new churches". The obvious result is the dwindling of those communities over the centuries. It was unjust force and submission.

There is even a Hadith about Omar, something like "pay the Jiziye to protect yourself from me".

1MoreMuslim said...

Ken :

"Ok, but do you agree that 2:256 was revealed in early Medina, in the first 2 years, before the Battle of Badr of 624 AD ?"

No I don't agree. Ibn Katheer and Tabari say that it was revealed after Banu Nadheer were expelled from Madina , that is at least 4 years after Hijra. At that time the Muslims were strong and numerous. You may ask your tutor Mr Spencer, what is his proof.

Ken said...

I wonder why these three Muslims say it was earlier?

Also, Pickthall, Yusef Ali, and Muhammad Asad (The Message of the Qur'an) all say that most of Surah Al Baqara (until verse 275) was revealed in the first 2 years of the Hijra before the battle of Badr. This is before the first Battle of Islam, when the fighting began.

1MoreMuslim said...

I can quote early "christian" fathers that would make you run in horror. Sorry but these 3 Muslims are not scholars, and forgive me for not believing loons like MR Spencer.