Yesterday on Dr. Michael Brown’s Line of Fire radio show, I debated Dr. James White, a Christian evangelist, on the question, “Is True Islam Always Violent Islam?”
Of course, Islam has no central authority that can declare what is “true Islam” and what isn’t, but one can certainly speak about what is authoritative, mainstream Islam, and I did.
Donald R Laster Jr says
The Qur’an and Shar’iah law make it clear that to be faithful to the Islamic theocracy one must force Islam on everyone. And Islam says to use violence, deception, and any means or tools possible to force Islam on people. All one has to do is learn what Islam teaches and what it has done for 1400 years.
mortimer says
There are four kinds of jihad: that of 1) the sword (violence) 2) the tongue (disinformation) 3) the pen (legal) 4) money (financial sabotage and bribery).
More than 99% of jihad is non-violent. However, violent jihad is done without any mercy or compassion.
Jihad is always opportunistic. Not all Muslims participate in violent jihad, but 100% of all Muslims commit the jihad of the tongue by concealing, hiding and lying about the meaning, the motives and methods of jihad. ALL MUSLIMS LIE ABOUT JIHAD TO THE DIRTY KAFIRS, or they have left Islam.
commonsense says
Morty (if I may call you that), you forgot a fifth kind of jihad: demographic jihad. Hijra. You should be forgiven for this omission, as you write tirelessly and often provide valuable information. Stay safe.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Dr. James White is becoming more and more deluded as times go by.
mortimer says
James White wants to argue that Islam is flexible when, in fact, Islam is highly codified. Sharia law legislates the need for jihad. Jihad is not an option for individual choice. The caliphs must call jihad twice a year. Individuals must go to jihad when conscripted by the caliph.
The expansion of Islam through warfare is a normative part of Sharia law. In actual Islamic history, the caliph had virtually unlimited dictatorial powers to kill anyone he want, kill any people he didn’t approve of and plunder any nation he was able to plunder.
White’s search for a sensible, kindly Islam that is reasonable with its neighbors has no historical example.
If fact, there is authority in Islam, the authority of the ‘consensus’ and that consensus is today represented by Al Azhar University.
Auralae says
These are strawman arguments, beginning with your contention that White is arguing for a flexible Islam—no he’s never argued that, instead, he’s argued (time and time again) that Islam isn’t consistent. In fact, he’s pointed out in this dialogue that he’s repeatedly argued that it’s inconsistency proves it’s not divine. White has never searched for a sensible, let alone kindly Islam—instead, he’s debated that according to it’s own sources, it’s the opposite of sensible. He’s taken head on the prescription to murder unbelievers as well as the utter lack of understanding of Christianity within the Qur’an itself. He’s simply following the same course of action he’s always followed when reaching out to a cult (such as Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses) or Catholics or LGBTQ and now Muslims–he reads THEIR sources, and then attempts to reach out respectfully and with grace. In my personal opinion, he does better with some topics at some times than with others….but then he’s never claimed perfection, quite the opposite in fact.
I totally understand wanting to support Dr. Spencer–he’s great!!!! However, I’m afraid he might have a wee bit of a blind spot where it comes to White, because of his stance on Catholicism.
Mark Swan says
“He’s simply following the same course of action he’s always followed when reaching out to a cult (such as Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses) or Catholics or LGBTQ and now Muslims–he reads THEIR sources, and then attempts to reach out respectfully and with grace. In my personal opinion, he does better with some topics at some times than with others….but then he’s never claimed perfection, quite the opposite in fact.”
How do you feel, that, calling billions of people a cult member, is going to help support Mr. White’s views?
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Protestantism is the cult. Roman Catholicism, while not true in my view, is much closer to the Christianity that existed in the earliest centuries than Protestantism.
Donald R Laster Jr says
St. Manuel II Palaiologos,
Actually, if you compare what the Roman Catholic Church is doing you will find the Protestantism is much closer to the teachings of the Bible. The Protestant movement by Luther, a Roman Catholic Priest, came about because of the Roman Catholic Church’s deviance from the Bible. Do some studying on the split between the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, and the other one. There were basically 4 centers of Christianity prior to the creation of the Islam and its destruction of the Middle East and North Africa. And when the Roman Catholic Church deviant from teachings the split with the other three branches occurred. This known history.
Mark Swan says
There are far to many sincere and decent human beings in both,
Catholic and Protestant Churches, regardless of any differences,
to be waved off as not Christian enough, for these it is real enough.
Aaron says
The real difference between Dr. White and Mr. Spencer is that Mr. Spencer’s position is much more straightforward and intellectually honest–and this probably does have everything to do with the fact that Dr. White is a Protestant because right there you can conclude he the type of person who will rationalize what he desires to believe to be true.
Aaron says
The problem with your thesis Donald R Laster is that Catholic Church is comprised of 23 sui iuris churches that represent every one of those four centers. The Roman Church might be the biggest single church in Catholicism, not to mention the whole planet, but it is not the only church is Catholicism. You still have Eastern, Coptic and Syrian rite Catholic churches. They are Catholic because they are in communion with Rome–and the Church produced the Bible so I don’t how any rational person concludes that Catholic beliefs are not biblical. To do this you have decided to interpret the text by the light of your own desires. Furthermore, I consider Islam along with Rabbinical Judaism to be a type of proto-Protestantism. Islam historically is probably best characterized as a Christain heresy. In any case, all three of these “relgions” came about after the Church was founded and take aim at the Cross (or at least the Church). Although, they all employ different strategies. Nevertheless, I think it’s pretty clear that the same agent is responsible for all three.
As for Mark Swan’s comment about there being decent and good Protestants, this is true enough, but there are also decent and good Muslims for that matter, not to mention Jews. Even while there are many self-professing Catholics who aren’t. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the Church is the Church and that there is no salvation outside of her, and it is this Church that Protestantism (in all three of these forms) is in protest against.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Islam has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. Mohammad’s god Hubal (Baal, the moon god), chief god of the Arab pantheon of gods, was losing followers to Christianity and Judaism. Mohammad did his best to get people to follow his god and he was rejected. That is when he stop his peaceful rhetoric and switched to violence and mayhem. Don’t fall into the trap he was promoting a variant of Christianity or Judaism. He wanted people to worship his god. And Islam is a theocracy.
The text of the Bible was produced in the 300 or 400s, if I remember the time frame properly, by a priest in Egypt who looked at all of the writings and to determine that which was real. The Book of James almost got excluded because it talks about “Works” and was included because it was realized that the discussion of “Works” was about how being “Saved by Christ” reflected in the life of “Works” of a person. The Roman Catholic Church started deviating from the teachings in the late 400 and 500s. For instance, there is no obligation for a person to be unmarried in the Bible to serve in the Church. The Roman Catholic Church did that to keep land.
Don’t fall for the lie that Islam is related to Judaism or Christianity. Islam is completely unrelated to Judaism or Christianity.
Jean says
This debate is meaningless when hundreds of people are being killed in Europe and the UK yearly by Muslims. Obviously these people believe in violence, and that’s what America is going to be dealing with in the near future. James White’s insistence on holding to this idea of what do they actually believe [or whatever he was talking about] is pointless. I listened to and followed his ministry for 8 years until a year ago when he said Islam isn’t violent after the Orlando nightclub shooting. I don’t know what to think about him and his ministry any more. If he wants to reach Muslims the gospel, why doesn’t he do street preaching in London like other missionaries? He doesn’t need to know how to read their writings in the original language to share the gospel.
Emilie Green says
“I don’t know what to think about him and his ministry any more.”
Yes, you do.
Vance says
“I listened to and followed his ministry for 8 years until a year ago when he said Islam isn’t violent after the Orlando nightclub shooting.”
Can you give me the exact quote and the source (article or video)? I will have to hear/read it to believe he said that. I’ve heard him say that not all Islam is the same, and that there are many Muslims who actually do abhor violence; but, at the same time, he has acknowledged that Islam, as defined by a multitude of Muslims, is most certainly violent. I think he said something like that in his debate with Robert.
Recently, after his public discussion with a Muslim, he has been accused of defending Islam. No, he has not defended Islam. Just listen to a few of his debates with Muslims. I have never heard him say anything that I would call a “defense.”
Auralae says
Exactly.
He’s said Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity, that’s not “defense” of it.
Mo says
@ Vance
““I listened to and followed his ministry for 8 years until a year ago when he said Islam isn’t violent after the Orlando nightclub shooting.”
“Can you give me the exact quote and the source (article or video)? I will have to hear/read it to believe he said that. I’ve heard him say that not all Islam is the same, and that there are many Muslims who actually do abhor violence; but, at the same time, he has acknowledged that Islam, as defined by a multitude of Muslims, is most certainly violent.”
Thank you! I was going to ask for that same evidence. I’ve listened to/watched many of his videos. I’ve never heard him say any such thing. Not remotely!
Auralae says
” He doesn’t need to know how to read their writings in the original language to share the gospel.”
Well, if he wants to thoroughly debunk them he certainly does. Muslims claim that a translation is an interpretation, therefore the only “pure” understanding is in the original language.
Here’s where White and Spencer certainly appear to have different goals—White is reaching out TO Muslims, and evidently being blessed to do so…doors certainly have opened up to him that are closed to most. I’ve watched several of his debates though, and he’s NOT ignoring or soft-pedaling his understanding of what Islam teaches, he’s just being very careful to obey that command to do so in a spirit of grace and with love.
Dr. Spencer though (imho) is a watchman–his direction of ministry is towards those in Western Civilization responsible for policy. His mission is one of warning…not necessarily one of invitation directed at those under the brutal oppression of Islam. They’re both members of one body, but with very different jobs
Mo says
@ Auralae
“Here’s where White and Spencer certainly appear to have different goals—White is reaching out TO Muslims, and evidently being blessed to do so…doors certainly have opened up to him that are closed to most. I’ve watched several of his debates though, and he’s NOT ignoring or soft-pedaling his understanding of what Islam teaches, he’s just being very careful to obey that command to do so in a spirit of grace and with love.”
That’s been my view as well.
“Dr. Spencer though (imho) is a watchman–his direction of ministry is towards those in Western Civilization responsible for policy. His mission is one of warning…not necessarily one of invitation directed at those under the brutal oppression of Islam. They’re both members of one body, but with very different jobs”
I think this is very well stated, and a very important distinction to make.
Vance says
Thank you! That’s exactly right. Robert has done a tremendous service by warning about the true nature of the threat we’re dealing with, while James has done a great job of proclaiming the gospel to people who desperately need to hear it. God bless both of them!
Mo says
@ Vance
“Thank you! That’s exactly right. Robert has done a tremendous service by warning about the true nature of the threat we’re dealing with, while James has done a great job of proclaiming the gospel to people who desperately need to hear it. God bless both of them!”
Yep. That’s why I don’t want to see them on opposite sides. I haven’t finished the audio yet, but I hope it’s not ugly.
Graeme Howarth says
I think you made some excellent points that could not be explained away. Dr White seems indeed to have fallen more under the sway of his Islamic mentors than is prudent. To argue that Sharia has various forms, some benign, some not is tantamount to saying that in Old Testament times a Jew could not obey all of the 10 Commandments and that’s ok because they are following the commandments they’re comfortable with that “truly reflect the nature of Judaism”. No. These are 10 commandments, we don’t get to choose that we can sometimes kill while always respecting our parents. Its either obey completely or do not obey at all.
Dr White has a good reputation from the little I know of him, I hope that through this debate he really begins to understand just how incoherent his arguments are. You did him and the larger church a service Robert. Well done.
Vance says
“To argue that Sharia has various forms, some benign, some not is tantamount to saying that in Old Testament times a Jew could not obey all of the 10 Commandments and that’s ok because they are following the commandments they’re comfortable with that ‘truly reflect the nature of Judaism’.”
That’s not a valid comparison. It would be better to compare differences among Muslims with actual differences among Jews or Christians. (The one you offered was made-up.) Orthodox Jews believe in the “Oral Torah,” but Karaite Jews reject it outright. Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived; Eastern Orthodoxy has a view of original sin that makes the Immaculate Conception pointless. Most (but not all) Protestants agree with Rome on original sin but reject the Immaculate Conception. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians have different views on a wide range of subjects, and practices that vary greatly. With so many differences within Judaism and within Christianity, why is it so improbable that Muslims would have different views on things such as Sharia and jihad?
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is one who believes in separation of state and mosque. I suspect there lots of other Muslims who believe as he does? Check out his website: https://aifdemocracy.org/
Mark Swan says
Just because someone does not display openly what they
have to base their beliefs on…does not mean they will not, at the
very least be empathetic with others who act on it.
These moderate Muslims seem to exist, so We observe this,
do We feel anyone who can read and has read the Quran
and is ok with it, can be something other than Muslim.
Do We expect anyone who is not a Muslim, but has read the
Quran, to understand, how someone who knows what is in the
Quran, can keep Saying they are Muslim.
In this age of Islam spreading aggressively, are we going to hope
moderate Muslims, can water down the very essence of Islam which
is about control plane and simple…are we to think the big players
in this are naive and vulnerable, or maybe ok with this—what.
They have been building-up to this time for many decades…they can
work any system better than its originators, they are very effective.
This is a supremacist Ideology…do We expect them to accept equality.
All their ingenuous determined efforts are very real and very wide-spread.
Do We feel these Muslim folks just need a clear view of
the good life, and when they realize how wonderful a good life
Is, these beliefs, based on the Quran will just go away.
The rest of this world cannot be on hold…how long do We have to give Them to make this reformation, after many centuries of the exact same belief.
Should the words good and Muslim be used together…read the Quran.
Do these exist…if so, let them cast off this hate group membership.
Let them join the free World and help…that is what they could do.
Many beliefs are part of humanity…yet humanity can not accept the Quran.
Whom then do we liken the Muslim Brotherhood to be.
Many have considered them Moderate Muslims.
They are not.
Recall, from the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
CONTROL
Graeme Howarth says
Hi Vance, thanks for the reply. I’m a little ill at the moment so not at all sure I am making sense. However, Islam is a religion of law & precedent. The Shafi’i book of Sharia law “The reliance of the traveller” lays out what Sharia is according to that school. It is no more or less than what that book of jurisprudence says it is, in black & white. When it teaches that jihad means obligatory fighting of non-Muslims that has to either be obeyed or ignored – perhaps explained away – but it cannot be changed into “love your neighbour”.
God bless Zuhdi Jasser and those Muslims like him. However they (like Dr White) have little more than wishful thinking and a vain grasping at a non-existent ijtihad to look to for the kind of reform they want. I would love to see them succeed, but they can’t redefine Sharia as it stands as they are coming against all the history and all the brilliant scholars of Islam who have put together books like Reliance.
He can’t redefine Sharia. As Robert said in the interview there are no peaceful schools of orthodox Islam, nor can there ever be without an almost unimaginable overhaul of how Islam perceives itself.
I don’t know if I’m making any sense but I hope this contributes to the topic.
Vance says
You are making perfect sense (sorry you haven’t been feeling well), and I agree that all schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach the same things on Sharia and jihad. I also think that if Muslims gained dominance in this country, a good many of our peaceful Muslim neighbors would not stand up against the imposition of Islamic law, not because they want it, but because of fear of getting their heads chopped off. Many of them have lived under oppressive regimes and don’t want anything else to do with them. They would be horrified at that thought of Sharia in the country that’s given them such marvelous liberty. We might call that “liberal Islam,” but I think there’s a lot of it in this country. They have their ways of “explaining” the texts on violence, killing Jews and Christians, etc. I know, as I’ve asked them. I think they really do believe their brand of Islam is authentic. You may be right in saying that an overhaul of Islam is unlikely, but I think more than a tiny handful of Muslims believe there is hope.
JAR says
Thanks, Robert, for posting another great piece of work.
Dr. White gives up the game when he says, “One of the great dangers of Islam…” Not really the best way to defend a religion.
Too bad he could not (or would not) understand Robert’s analogies about Macbeth, Ford, and Chevrolet. His loss in moving the debate forward.
Dr. White needs to watch David Wood’s short video on the “Jihad Triangle,” to which jihadtracker likes to point readers here at JW.
If 1.6 Muslims around the world all observed the pre-Medina teaching and piety of Muhammed, the world might be a little better place. The last 1400 years of history show otherwise.
overman says
Yes, and he also needs to watch David Wood’s vid on ‘Taqiyya’.
Auralae says
SMH Guess where I first saw Dr. White! He was guest speaking on the Arabic Broadcasting Network–I first became acquainted with him about the same time I first saw Nabeel Qureshi (before he finished Med school) and David Wood—they’ve known eachother for YEARS. The fact that neither of you guys is even vaguely aware of this is because you’ve NOT listened to White and haven’t got a clue as to what he’s about. (They all mention one another at least occasionally—more recently there’s been a falling out with Sam Shamoun–totally on Sam’s part, not White’s and some fans of both have been suspecting a possible upcoming conversion to Catholicism might be the cause)
Try watching several of his debates–and not just on Islam, but with Shelby Sponge, or Bart Ehrman, or Dr. Michael Brown (love him too!) or perhaps Patrick Madrid. (There are a boatload of debates with Catholics–which might lend one to wonder if there isn’t a wee bit of anti-calvinism going on here because of that) >.> …. <..>
Like I said, some have wondered if Shamoun is about to cross the Tiber (so to speak) regardless, White’s issue is with his language, and lack of grace towards others.
JAR says
Hi, Auralae-
I noticed you did not comment on Dr. White’s performance here in this debate with Robert. Did you listen to it in its entirety? What is your evaluation of his performance here?
You have, however, admirably defended his performances elsewhere. His debates with opportunists and heretics like Ehrman and John Shelby Spong may be entertaining and informative to others including yourself, but some of us may not desire to “try watching” such things.
Not sure how anti-Calvinism plays into this. I’m hardly a fan of Calvin, but I cannot see how it is relevant to the Islamic issue here.
You also say that we “haven’t got a clue” to what Dr. White is about. Again, did you listen to this debate with Robert? Dr. White certainly gives us a clue as to what he thinks, pertaining to the topic at issue, not topics elsewhere.
In fact, not so many days ago, on June 14, Robert provided “a clue”–a very strong clue–as to what Dr. White thinks:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/christian-minister-james-white-has-kindred-spirit-in-jihadi-imam-yasir-qadhi
Did you watch any of the videos he provided here? We don’t need to go watch Bart Ehrman and “Sponge” debates in order to see to what extent White might be qualified to speak on Islam.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Robert spencer has not done well because he fail to show that he is truly learned on Islam.He has been using that old cheery_ pick method reading some translated verses of the Quran or hadith in isolation from other verses or hadiths as required in any objective analysis of a concept.Failure to do that is called intellectual bankruptcy. Mr Spencer has therefore failed in this debate.
overman says
“Robert spencer has not done well because he fail to show that he is truly learned on Islam”
No, lbrahim, that would be you.
Boston Tea Party says
Are you able to provide any actual examples of where Robert cherry-picked verses out of context, or were you just expressing your emotions?
SK says
What, specifically, is being cherry-picked? Be specific about what exactly he is cherry-picked.
billybob says
Ibrahim, I get the sense that you are well studied. To get a better sense of your understanding of Islam, I would like to ask your opinion of what Islamic law says should be the appropriate punishment for the following offences…
1.) Blatant blasphemy, like saying something really bad and crude about Muhammad that is in your opinion not only untrue, but slanderous and highly offensive
2.) A woman who has sex outside of marriage – and proudly says she enjoys it!
3.) Two men caught in a homosexual act, one analy penetrating the other. Which should be punished? How?
4.) Apostasy, where one has loudly denounced Islam and become a Jew
Supplementary question: Which of those offenses above are the worst? Second worst? etc..
I would so appreciate your answer. Thanks
mortimer says
Ibrahim, Spencer wrote 16 books about Islam. Did you read one of them?
No, you did not, and yet, preposterously, you present yourself as an authority on Robert Spencer.
Spencer knows the primary Islamic literature very well.
Pong says
The best example of “cherry picking” is when moslems and moslem apologists quoting 5.32 as an example of peaceful islam. In reality, if one quotes all 5.32 and 5.33, those are the most violent verses.
Pal says
“Ibrahim” is a long-time Islamic Troll – here, on FaceBook, elsewhere.
(The way “Christianblood” and others are Russian trolls here)
DON’t pay any attention to him!
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Dr. James White seems to be arguing as a sort of agnostic or postmodernist, and I cannot see how he could possibly do that as a fundamentalist Christian. “How can we know?” Scientifically, obviously we cannot know. The question is whether one who takes the Islamic sources holistically can be a non-violent individual. The answer to that is absolutely not. Whether or not someone just ‘picks and chooses’ which interpretations, scholars and texts to apply is not the question, obviously individuals can do whatever they want in that regard. Also, what Muhammad *actually said* in some positivistic scientific exploit is also not the question.
billybob says
I wouldn’t say Dr. White was arguing as a sort of agnostic or postmodernist. Rather, he was willing to “stretch it” to open a bridge to dialog with someone who would remain closed off to Robert Spencer. He is not so interested in condemning Islam as he is interested in “bring people to Christ”. I don’t really have a problem with that. Dr. White was clear on his opinion that Islam is spiritually bankrupt, though I don’t remember exactly how he put that. Indeed, the moderator himself brought that point out in his two questions for the debaters. Dr. White and Mr. Spencer have different goals. Robert’s goal is to provide accurate information, and Dr. White’s goal to preach the Gospels with the objective of conversion.
Boston Tea Party says
Yep, that’s a very fair analysis, billybob. I don’t think Robert and Dr. White disagree much on the inherent falseness and emptiness of Islam—they’re just approaching it from different perspectives. Although I do have to give the nod to Robert as far as accurately conveying hard, objective truth.
Auralae says
Dr. Spencer is WAY more succinct in his delivery–gotta love that!
Dr. White is in no manner shape or form either an agnostic (his belief and arguments for Christianity are quite firm) nor a post modernist–who don’t believe in either logic, or even dialogue! Both Spencer and White are pretty much the opposite of both agnostic and post modern.
Pong says
” White and Mr. Spencer have different goals. Robert’s goal is to provide accurate information, and Dr. White’s goal to preach the Gospels with the objective of conversion”.
I think you are missing the most important point. In order to even speak to the moslem, Dr. White has to make a first step – become a moslem apologist. He doesn’t get anything in return and does exactly what moslems want him to do. In doing that, he justifies the means, which is not a christian thing to do. As a matter of fact, he puts himself at the level of the worst possible situation. Moslems do it all the time to advance islam. He does it in hope to convert.
Vance says
“Dr. White has to make a first step – become a moslem apologist.”
Approaching Muslims respectfully and meeting them where they are is hardly the same thing as being an apologist for them. The Muslims he has debated know for sure that he believes that salvation is through no other name under heaven but the name of Jesus. White has again and again defended the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and Christ’s atoning sacrifice before Muslim audiences, and he’s expressed his hope that they’ll come to believe it. I think what you mean is that he is charitable and takes them at their word when they tell him they oppose the activities of the radicals.
PRCS says
Good point.
Wonder how successful Dr. White is in bringing Muslims to Christ.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Hopefully none at all. He’s bringing them to a false Christ vis-a-vis lies, deception, smooth talking etc. which is just rubbish. The Saints pulled no punches when it came to it’s origins from the Devil himself.
“It is true that Muhammad started from the east and came to the west, as the sun travels from east to west. Nevertheless he came with war, knives, pillaging, forced enslavement, murders, and acts that are not from the good God but instigated by the chief manslayer, the devil.” (St. Gregory Palamas)
Vance says
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says, “Hopefully none at all. He’s bringing them to a false Christ vis-a-vis lies, deception, smooth talking etc. which is just rubbish. The Saints pulled no punches when it came to it’s origins from the Devil himself.”
Yes indeed! White tells them about a false Christ who was “God in human flesh” and who made some kind of crazy “atoning sacrifice” that somehow benefits sinners. Have you ever heard such a crazy thing? You’re so right about that smooth-talker and the rubbish he preaches. He reminds me of that smooth-talking phony called “St. Paul,” who admitted he made himself “all things to all people” so that he might win some of them. It is soooooo obvious that you’ve listened to White’s debates with Muslims.
Con Massey says
Vance, your sarcasm sets a new high bar for excellence! The knife slipped right in between the ribs….surgical precision. ?
Georg says
The analogy of going to speak somewhere and leaving upon seeing a Ku Klux Klan banner was pretty funny. Is every last person speaking there a racist? Maybe not. Is it reasonable/prudent to assume they are? Yes.
Boston Tea Party says
Thanks, Robert.
That was a respectful debate, but I found Dr. White’s logic to be a bit fuzzy. It seems to me his point is that Islam and Shariah could hypothetically be interpreted in a more liberal manner, while Robert is simply pointing out that while that may be theoretically true, there is almost no historical evidence that that has occurred on any broad scale.
Dr. White’s arguments, to me, seem to be analogous to apologists for communism–arguing that communism COULD be benevolent if it was just interpreted differently. And I think that one could counter by saying that despite it’s many iterations, NONE of the many version of communism have been benevolent. I think that’s Robert’s argument about Islam, too—and I find the argument convincing.
I think Dr. White is just a little too influenced by postmodern relativism, and the idea that “texts don’t have any objective meaning, and anything can be reformed into anything else.”
Auralae says
What?!? Absolutely none of that is true about Dr. White. The man believes Islam is evil, and every single Muslim stuck under it’s brutal rule is doomed. He’s a missionary on a mission. He’s merely doing with outreach to Muslims that he’s done in the past with outreach to Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists, LGBTQ and Catholics–he’s researched THEIR OWN SOURCES and then used that knowledge to more precisely answer their objections to Christianity (or the practice thereof). There isn’t even a WHIFF of “postmodern relativism” –and he is in fact a textual critic!! The man’s an expert in Greek! Oy Vey!
James says
Catholics do not have objections to Christianity. To Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism, yes. To Christianity, *if by that is meant Evangelicalism* – as is often the case – yes.
As to the use of sources: they can give only a rather inadequate impression of a religion. This is what a lot atheists seem not to understand, either: the fact that an authoritative document exists in the history of a religion, cannot be translated into the supposition that because the adherents of a religion know of it, they feel themselves bound to obey it. There may be very good reasons within the religion for why the document has less authority than it may appear to have.
White tries to avoid the aggressive approach when engaging speakers from forms of religion he does not share. If this is a mistake, it is a mistake on the right side. There is so much combativeness on the Net that is a relief to find someone who prefers to be gracious than to assume the worst about those who differ from him. He is probably aware of the Biblical saying that “The wrath of man does not work the Righteousness of God”.
vlparker says
Is Dr. White really Zuhdi Jasser posing as someone else?
Georg says
lol It’s Zuhdi Jasser’s “Christian” alter ego.
Vance says
Oh no, no, no! Zuhdi Jasser doesn’t exist.
overman says
lt’s totally irrelevant if Muhammed existed or not. 1.6 billion muslims believe he did, and they’re violenty trying to imitate him in the 21st century. They believe he’s the Perfect man and they all want to be like him in word and deed. The vast majority follow the ‘medina’ Koran and not the abrogated ‘meccan’ version.. Sorry, but the Deception is so widespread now that everytime a muslim opens his mouth l feel like screaming Taqiyya. Dr White was right on that point [Deception].
lt’s amazing how Robert keeps his cool sometimes.
Sam says
Robert you are just great, You are just telling what the Islamic sources say. Muslims are violent as dictated by Allah so Mr White is really talking WHO KNOWS WHAT
Vance says
Of course Robert is a great guy, and he’s absolutely right about the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. James, too, is right. He believes there are multitudes of Muslims who advocate violence and would delight in cutting off his head. But he is also aware that there are Muslims who would be horrified at the thought of Sharia being imposed in the USA. Perhaps James has overestimated the number of peaceful Muslims who are content to live side-by-side with people of other faiths or no faith at all, but such Muslims really do exist. If you ask Robert about that, I don’t think he would disagree.
Boston Tea Party says
Thinking about this some more, I think where Dr. White goes wrong is his belief that the Quran is too vague to be interpreted without the hadiths, and because of that, it’s possible for the Quran to be interpreted in a moderate manner.
He first makes the argument that the Quran is much more vague than the New Testament–okay, that’s fine. But then he seems to makes the leap of logic that because it’s less clear, the text really has no objective meaning, and can thus be interpreted in a virtually unlimited variety of ways. I think Dr. White’s chain of logic there is flawed.
If I had a suggestion to make for Dr. White, it would be that he read (or re-read) C.S. Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man.”
billybob says
On the topic of the Quran’s clarity or lack thereof, I am hearing echoes in my mind of a David Wood video where he addresses that very issue. He shows where the Quran itself calls itself “clear” in meaning in no less than four places, then he goes on to demonstrate the glaring internal contradictions and obfuscations..
James says
It depends what the Koran means by calling itself “clear”. Is the same Arabic word or phrase used in all cases ? Might something else be meant in one or more of those passages ?
A text can be clear overall, even while it contains obscurities, even contradictions. The drift of the NT text is clear, even though it bristles with problems, including obscurities and ambiguities. What is clear to the first hearers or readers of a text, may be as clear as mud to later generations. Clarity need not require the perfect preservation of a text – unless, in a given case, there is a stipulation that it does require this. So what is meant by clarity, is not self-evident, but ambiguous.
Donald R Laster Jr says
The Qur’an only appears to contradict itself is because people don’t know the instructions related to the Qur’an. Any thing written later replaces that which was written earlier. So the instructions to be friends with Jews for instance was repealed when Mohammad switched to killing Jews since the Jews rejected Mohammad lies. And the Qur’an is not in the order written but ordered longest to shortest, which was probably done as part of the deception tools used by Mohammad and Islamics.
Vance says
“I think where Dr. White goes wrong is his belief that the Quran is too vague to be interpreted without the hadiths, and because of that, it’s possible for the Quran to be interpreted in a moderate manner.”
He doesn’t say it’s too vague to be interpreted without the hadiths; he says it’s inconsistent, as in internally contradictory. Of course it’s possible to interpret it “in a moderate manner.” Many Muslims interpret it that way. You’re connected to the Internet—do your own research. It won’t take but a few minutes to find information on how Muslims interpret the Qur’an “in a moderate manner.” I did a quick search and found this one in less than two minutes: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/04/10/yes-you-are-taking-those-verses-out-of-context-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/
Do not come back and say I’m defending Islam. I’m not! Muhammad was a false prophet, and Islam in all its forms is defective. I’m just pointing out that there are ways of interpreting internally contradictory material in a favorable light. And that’s precisely what many Muslims do.
Con Massey says
Vance, you’re doing the Lord’s work. For centuries now, we Christians have done as much harm to our cause as all atheists and secularists put together. Thanks.
Jason says
Dr White makes the same mistake as so many other people do. He is so desperate to believe in the benevolence of religion (and to avoid all out war), he clings to the faint glimmer of wishful thinking that a) a peaceful interpretation of Islam exists, and b) the Muslims of the world can be persuaded to this peaceful version of Islam, *before* they destroy the West. Regardless of whether A exists or not, it is B that is the true delusion. Like all the other reformers and ‘lets just persuade the Muslims’ types, he genuinely believes that sufficient numbers of Muslims can be persuaded to change their minds about conquering the West, and that we should bet the future of Western Civilization on this.
Boston Tea Party says
Nile on the head: you hit it.
Boston Tea Party says
Oops—that’s “Nail on the head.”
Mark Swan says
Thank you Jason, Absolutely.
Vance says
Dr. White does not do what he does in hopes of a peaceful form of Islam emerging throughout the Muslim world. His hope is to be an instrument in God’s hands in helping Muslims stop being Muslims! You haven’t hit the nail on the head; you’ve missed the nail altogether.
Mo says
I will have to listen to this tomorrow. I listen to all three of these men on a regular basis. It makes me sad to see this whole mess.
We’ll see what the program holds.
RCCA says
I took the gist of Dr. White’s argument to be that he preferred not to offend Muslims by telling them their religion advocates violence because he wants to convert to Christianity those who are more lax Muslims. He’s got a salesman’s mentality.
I found Dr. White’s deliberate inability to understand the concept of analogies somewhat disturbing, especially given his background as an author.
Kudos to Robert for his equanimity and excellent responses. Like a hot knife through butter.
Robert Crawford says
Dr White is a *Christian* evangelist?
Then why:
1) does he deny the truth about Islam?
2) does he defend Islam?
Vance says
He does neither! Like Robert Spencer, he believes there are peaceful Muslims. It’s just that he believes there are a lot more of them than Robert believers there are. But he also believes that there are massive numbers of Muslims who are willing to do whatever it takes to conquer the world for Islam. And he absolutely does NOT defend Islam. He’s charitable in approaching them and meeting them where they are *in order to* proclaim the gospel to them. His hope to be an instrument in God’s hands to help Muslims stop being Muslims by coming to faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, Dr. White is a Christian evangelist. He’s also a Christian apologist.
Lydia says
That is interesting. First of all, of course islam is a violent religion. And this is documented because a religion is defined by it’s ‘holy’ book and as we know, islam teaches violence and bloodshed.
Either he is ignorant of this, but that would also be truly odd. I looked him up and he seems to be an apologist who should be well aware of the problems in islam, etc. (Albeit he is a Calvinist).
The thing is, the source is the Bible and these days I would hardly trust a man to represent the Christian perspective very well. Even the ones who had appeared to be the best pillars in the faith are falling like dominoes into what is ‘the great apostasy’ of the end times as it is prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2 and other places in the Bible. All but a few will blend in with their big ‘coexist’ campaign and pander to the world religions and so forth and totally turn a blind eye to the truth. This is leading up to the one world religion under antichrist, also prophesied in the Bible. I realize this is hard to digest if one is not in the know on these matters, but it is better to warn than not to warn and that is why I say turn to the Bible and not the words of men. If it requires an outside source, all we need to do is reference that source (such as the quran, etc.) for that viewpoint. The rest is just looked at through the lens of man’s interpretation, which can be rather faulty as we know.
Mark Swan says
Thank you Lydia, good comment, absolutely.
Pong says
It is sad that Robert, in order to have some access to a wider audience, has to engage in such debates. Shameles arrogance, ignorance and moral bankruptcy is on display from his opponent.
I think 2 posts from Jason and RCCA reflect excellent understanding of what Dr. White is all about. Even illiterate moslems understand that by becoming christian apologist, a moslem doesn’t advance islam. Dr. White on another hand doesn’t seem to understand that being a moslem apologist, he harms christianity and christians.
mortimer says
The debate question “Is True Islam Always Violent Islam?” can only be answered by ‘yes’ and ‘no’, because jihad is multi-pronged. Jihad is not STRAIGHTFORWARD, but uses a number of approaches to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and kafirs. Jihad is always deceitful hiding its, meaning, motives and methods from the kafirs.
Jihad is not merely ‘jihad-per-se’. Jihad is paired with Hegira. Jihad swings forward, while Hegira swings back. The purpose of Hegira is to prepare for Jihad.
The question of ‘Was there a Mohammed?’ also comes up in the debate…and ‘does his existence matter if Mohammed is an invented literary figure like Macbeth?’ The answer is that the ISLAMIC SOURCE TEXTS about Mohammed are important because people are willing to kill and die in order to imitate Mohammed’s jihadic actions.
To answer the debate question itself… we must say that Islam SOMETIMES uses violent jihad, and SOMETIMES uses the deceitful jihad of verbal lies, legal subterfuges, financial sabotage, bribery and many other ways to defeat the kafirs. Jihad is multi-pronged. Jihad is like an octopus. Jihad is like a hydra. Jihad is a total war that proceeds forward opportunistically when the kafirs are too weak to resist.
Jihad is not ONLY violent, Jihad is MOSTLY disinformation, but Jihad is ALSO violent.
We are now in the era of the Third Great Jihad. White doesn’t take that seriously. I think a number of Mulsims are feeding White disinformation and he is believing it.
Jihad is USUL UD DEEN, an ‘essential’ of faith that ALL Muslims must practice in order to be admitted to Islamic paradise. A Muslim who does not conduct jihad or help jihad will go to hell.
I understand that White doesn’t want to be seen to encourage jihad, but denying that jihad is a duty for all Muslims is dishonest and not accurate.
James White lost the debate and couldn’t identify a school that recommends peaceful coexistence with Kafirs. James White also ignores that JIHAD is an ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE that must be PRACTISED for Islamic salvation. That is his big error.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely needed to be said mortimer, thank you.
Auralae says
One could just as easily argue that Spencer lost the debate as soon as he admitted that if SOME in the group are performing Jihad, not all other members of the group need to.
White’s goal is outreach, Spencer’s goal is defense. They are different, but complimentary.
Pal says
ROBERT – Bravo – Praise for you!
White simply Doesn’t know Islam, Quran.
He doesn’t know and quote even One detail.
And, in many moments, he only Assumes. He also confuses.
He also applies general patterns to Islam, ones the way many people, politicians, media apply. With his only general ‘political’ views, he even agrees with the so-called ‘mis-interpretations’ of ‘that great religion’.
Debates are Necessary – More debates – with dissemination and wider Audibility!
Auralae says
You’ve never watched a single one of White’s debates, let alone read any of his books.
Robert doesn’t need such sycophantic praise….and White probably doesn’t need defending…but this is rather egregious. Debates are necessary and I heartily suggest you watch a few of White’s before insulting him so.
Con Massey says
Auralae, I appreciate your efforts to encourage some of the posters to take another look at what James White is really all about. He certainly does understand Islam completely. He simply wants to approach Muslims with Grace initially and once rapport is established get to the nitty gritty with facts. Spencer did “win” the debate. But there is no need to denigrate White as some sort of agnostic/postmodernist something or other. I support both men in their efforts to shed light on the evils of Islam. They just have different agendas. Can we all show a little Grace here?
Linnte says
Ya ate his lunch Mr. Spencer! And your opponent in this debate neither understands Islam or human behavior. Also, why is it I “got” your analogies, yet he scoffed at them and pretended to not understand? Lastly, literally, some of the things he said were not comprehendible.
Good debate YOU WON!
FYI says
Ask for an-enumerated-list of God’s Original Commandments in the koran.
Now surely when jibreel(the anti-semitic angel of islam)was giving the koran to muhammed there must have been a point where allah gave an enumerated list to him.
Even as an appendix…No?
And why did allah completely miss the two Chief Ones(found in Judaism and Christianity but not in islam?)
Isn’t it odd that allah equivocates and encourages his followers to flout these Laws of God?
God’s Original Commandments are very clear.Any equivocations that twist these laws are wrong .Holy men and “prophets” always love to twist His laws to suit themselves.That’s why false prophets always try the polygamy trick.All they have to do is claim that “God told me in dream that I could have all the women I want”.Yeah sure He did:God said it’s ok to indulge in immoral and sinful behaviour.More likely it is the diabolus simius Dei that encourages such “prophets” to get away with such.sinfulness.
God does not approve of murder and since He condemns adultery well that means that polygamy is certainly wrong too.Adultery- with a slave woman- is allah’s way of getting around this.Murdering and stealing from infidels is allah’s way of getting around the prohibition on murder and stealing:as long as they are infidels,it is OK to break God’s commandments.But it isn’t!
But allah is OK with all that!
If allah is the same as God…. then allah will be in total agreement and will never encourage such laws to be broken.
But allah does.
so allah is NOT the same as God.
What allah teaches is in direct opposition to God’s commandments.
Look at what allah teaches on adultery,murder,lying,stealing etc and compare with God’s Laws:allah disagrees with God’s laws.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Remember the god of Islam is Hubal (Baal) the Moon god. The word “allah” means “the god”. It is not a name.
Cliff Wilson says
Very well done Robert, you both made very valid points. You regarding orthodoxy, White regarding the Muslim Who wants to find a reason to live in peace.
Personally I think a good tasks away here for a Christian sharing their faith is that the violent nature of orthodox Islam should be used in a polemical way to get Muslims who do want peace to question their texts objectively.
Lon Spector says
Dr. White is a cuck. A shameful disgraceful cuck and apologist for murderous mayhem.
How many more 12 year old girls have to be blown to bits in stadiums? How many more 8
year olds have to be raped and sexually exploited to appease the urges of beasts who
copulate with donkys? With people like White, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Con Massey says
Lon, you have serious issues. If you actually listened to Spencer and White or if you know anything at all about White’s Christianity you could not honestly or intelligently say such things about him. Get a grip on yourself!! Better yet, get on your knees…..
Mark Swan says
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/christian-minister-james-white-has-kindred-spirit-in-jihadi-imam-yasir-qadhi
Con Massey says
Hey, Mark, I read Jihad Watch every day and have great respect for Robert Spencer and what he is doing to expose the evils of Islam. It just seems unnecessary for anybody to slam White for his attempt to reach out to Muslims. He isn’t naive or uninformed about Islam, and based on his defense of the Gospel he is certainly a committed Christian. Let’s all be sure we don’t have any casualties among us due to “friendly fire”. How much stronger would Christendom be if we showed more Grace to those with whom we might have theological differences? Let’s “hug it out” man. ?
Mark Swan says
Con Massey, I have not said one word negative about Mr. White, though he is completely out of his reach with Mr. Spencer on Islam, and most of us are too.
Muslims being those who have the Quran for a source of morality, know it says they can lie.
Those who have followed the Quran, know the intent of Islam is about control, nothing less, and all of its followers, know that they are required to wage Jihad on all those that are not Muslim, plainly written in the Quran.
Muslims can not let up on Jihad until everyone is conquered by Islam.
No one can take Islam lightly; we are talking of a very organized and real centuries old movement, that has always had its heart set on conquering the world, with real resources, determination, many allies and perceived opportunity now supporting it.
So even though only a few hundred million admit they support Jihad, ok, now you can go ahead and aknowledge the lying factor, and realize this is a tremendous movement.
We here know Islam and its intent for power makes it an insurgency prepared under the guise of religion for theocratic rule—we realize that subversive exploit of all manner is being unleashed through our free society.
The Islam movement has it’s star leadership—we all know it by its name.
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Egypt, an organization that established Islam as a modern movement. It was, and remains to this day the ideological heart of
all the later Islam groups.
Firstly, focus – for now –to come to terms with a political left which has totally lost its moral compass and political bearings. Islam has embedded the strategic effort of divide and conquer, and with a working goal, that seeks to meld with certain movements, and beyond that, exchange Islam, in the place of the former left’s territory—that is their hope.
Islam such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hammas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime do not hide their goal –the re-constituting of democratic societies and their replacement by a sharia-based dictatorial rule. All Muslim Nations support this.
In the mind of Islam, the Democracy way of life, constitutes, rebellion against obedience to Islam, It has to be changed. Total obedience must be to the orders and prohibitions of Islam’s Law. The Islam belief is that allowing people political and personal freedom amounts to heresy.
It is astonishingly so troublesome, that, the political left has enabled Islam, it is so disturbing how they have fell in with such fellowship—but they have—no news there—yet.
With the left resisting anything conservative, it will not recognize Islam abusing constitutional freedom as wrong—not yet.
Multiculturalism has been the Ideal for so long, that any criticism of any group, is not acceptable unless it is the group (s) that the “In People” say is ok to criticize. If this is allowed to continue we will not be able to share any honest, open and diverse opinions of our own—we may even accept a warped collective mindset.
Islam’s threat to our personal freedom is not a point of discussion in academia nor any public forum of any kind—this is a strong political fail-safe for Islam to enjoy—for now—that is changing.
There is no other active anti-Democracy movement like Islam.
You can not be for Islam, and against Fascism.
Islam is about control.
Recall, from the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
CONTROL
Peacemaker says
That’s no point to say Muslim (perhaps majority of Muslim) have been learning Islam wrongly when talking about Islamic Jihad. In fact, since the beginning of Islam, all Islam law schools have been teaching Muslim communities to wage war against unbelievers and such teaching has been broadly accepted by Muslim for all time. Claiming Islamic Jihadis were misguided is no different than denying the existence of Islam.
Carolyne says
“Original sin.” I don’t believe that a talking snake told Eve (I don’t believe in Eve, either) to “Go ahead, Honey, eat that apple. It’s delicious.” Nor do I believe that talking stones will tell Muslims that a Jew is hiding behind the stone. IMO one is as likely as the other.
However I do believe that a Muslim must, if he obeys the Koran, kill infidels where he finds them.
Its all mythology, but Islam is deadly.
martin says
RE:-
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
June 23, 2017 at 8:00 pm
Protestantism is the cult. Roman Catholicism, while not true in my view, is much closer to the Christianity that existed in the earliest centuries than Protestantism.
Responce:-
To say that you would have to be, or feign, ignorance of history and the bible.