Dr. James White: “Theology Matters” ; and debates with Muslims

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/dr-james-white-theology-matters.html

Over at the other blog I write for (with James Swan and others), I have embedded 3 videos, one of Dr. White on his recent Dividing Line program, showing the need for Christians to reach out to Muslims, witness to/evangelize  Muslims and not be afraid of them.

The other 2 are Dr. White’s more recent debates with 2 Muslims in South Africa.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Islam, Muslims. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Dr. James White: “Theology Matters” ; and debates with Muslims

  1. θ says:

    Prophet Muhammad confirms three teachings and three leanings in Scriptures: legal militarism of Moses’ Torah (Tawrat), public statesmanship of Psalmists (Zabour), and personal tolerance of Jesus’ Gospel (Injil).
    Legalistic aspect of the Sharia Law is Islamic leaning to Moses.
    Love aspect of Sufism (Ahl as-Suffa) is Islamic leaning toward Jesus.
    Political aspect of Caliphate is Islamic leaning to David and Solomon.

    Byzantium was conquered by Moslem’s militarism.
    Islamic Golden Age was reached by two Medieval Caliphates in Baghdad and Iberia.
    The unbeatable Mongol hordes were made converted and overcome by Sufism.

    Without Sufism there’s no today’s Moslem History. Sufism starts from the beginning of Islam.
    Bukhari. vol.1, Book 10, Number 576:
    Narrated Abu ‘Uthman: By Allah, whenever any one of us (myself and the guests of Suffa companions) took anything from the food, it increased from underneath. We all ate to our fill and the food was more than it was before its serving.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    Byzantium was conquered by Moslem’s militarism.

    why?
    why did Umar Ibn Al Khattab (2nd Caliph) attack in aggressive warfare, both the Byzantine Empire, and the Persian Empire?

    Was not Abu Bakr (the first Caliph) applying Surah 9:5 (and other texts and principles, for example, the Hadith that says, “if anyone leaves Islam, kill him”) in the apostate wars when after Muhammad died, many Muslims in Arabia turned away from Islam and refused to pay Zakat?

    And was not Umar (the second Caliph) applying Surah 9:29-31 (and context of Surah 9:28 – verse right before, “if you fear poverty . . . ” from no more pagans giving revenue to visit Mecca and Kaaba, etc. – see the quotes from Ibn Kathir explaining why they attacked the Christians, based on Surah 9:28-31.

    see full discussion here:
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%91%DB%8C-in-islam/

    You never answered my questions to you there.

  3. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: see full discussion here:
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%91%DB%8C-in-islam/
    You never answered my questions to you there.”

    But early Moslems, early Caliphs, and Moslem empires onward never stepped in to the western neighboring country, that is Ethiopia, where the Christian kingdom once laid. Hence the real reason of northern conquest and eastern conquest is, because Moslems and our allies (Jews, Christian Monophysites, Arab Ghassanids, Christian Lakhmids) were attacked first.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia
    Revolt of the Arab Client States (602)
    The Byzantine clients, the Arab Ghassanids, converted to the Monophysite form of Christianity, which was regarded as heretical by the established Byzantine Orthodox Church. The Byzantines attempted to suppress the heresy, alienating the Ghassanids and sparking rebellions on their desert frontiers.
    The Lakhmids also revolted against the Persian king Khusrau II. Nu’man III (son of Al-Monder IV), the first Christian Lakhmid king, was deposed and killed by Khusrau II in 602, because of his attempt to throw off the Persian tutelage.
    After Khusrau’s assassination, the Persian Empire fractured and the Lakhmids were effectively semi-independent. It is now widely believed that the annexation of the Lakhmid kingdom was one of the main factors behind the Fall of Sassanid dynasty, to the Muslim Arabs and the Islamic conquest of Persia, as the Lakhmids agreed to act as spies for the Muslims after being defeated in the Battle of Hira by Khalid ibn al-Walid.[5]

  4. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: see full discussion here:
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%91%DB%8C-in-islam/
    You never answered my questions to you there.”

    But with a consistency in Historical facts, the early Moslems, early Caliphs, and Moslem empires onward never stepped in to the western neighboring country, that is Ethiopia, where the great Christian kingdom once laid. Hence the real reason of northern conquest and eastern conquest is, because Moslems and our allies (Jews, Christian Monophysites, Arab Ghassanids, Christian Lakhmids) were attacked first.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Persia
    Revolt of the Arab Client States (602)
    The Byzantine clients, the Arab Ghassanids, converted to the Monophysite form of Christianity, which was regarded as heretical by the established Byzantine Orthodox Church. The Byzantines attempted to suppress the heresy, alienating the Ghassanids and sparking rebellions on their desert frontiers.
    The Lakhmids also revolted against the Persian king Khusrau II. Nu’man III (son of Al-Monder IV), the first Christian Lakhmid king, was deposed and killed by Khusrau II in 602, because of his attempt to throw off the Persian tutelage.
    After Khusrau’s assassination, the Persian Empire fractured and the Lakhmids were effectively semi-independent. It is now widely believed that the annexation of the Lakhmid kingdom was one of the main factors behind the Fall of Sassanid dynasty, to the Muslim Arabs and the Islamic conquest of Persia, as the Lakhmids agreed to act as spies for the Muslims after being defeated in the Battle of Hira by Khalid ibn al-Walid.[5]

  5. Ken Temple says:

    answered at the comment box at “the Concept of Dhimmi” in Islam.

  6. θ says:

    Islamic scholars and Historians know that Islam is not hostile or aggressive toward neighbors. Mostly early Moslems enter the war of attrition to defend the Non-Moslem allies.

    Early Moslems did not, even never, attack an important Christian kingdom Ethiopia (being quite similar to today’s Vatican) and neighboring western Africans at that time because they were not hegemonic or hostile. Neither Arabs nor Non-Muslim allies get territorial threats or any aggression from them.

    Also the typical letter (accept peace you will have peace) of Prophet Muhammad to rulers of the different kingdoms (Byzantium, Persia, and Egypt) is not sent to Ethiopia. Rather, it is another letter that has an appreciative tone, and a clear preaching style.

    Qur’an Q.3, v.64 and the invitation letter of Prophet Muhammad to Byzantium confirm the Monotheism of Al-Ariyasiyyin that still exist in 7th century.
    “ من محمد بن عبد الله إلى هرقل عظيم الروم: سلام على من اتبع الهدى، أما بعد فإنى أدعوك بدعوة الإسلام . أسلم تسلم ويؤتك الله أجرك مرتين ، فإن توليت فإن عليك إثم الأريسيِّين. و يا أهل الكتاب تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ألا نعبد إلا الله ،ولا نشرك به شيئا،ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضا آربابا من دون الله فإن تولوا فقولوا اشهدوا بأنا مسلمون
    In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: (This letter is) from Muhammad son of Abdullah to Heraclius the Great of the Romans. Peace be upon him, he who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to establish peace; establish peace and you will have peace, and God will double your reward, and if you reject, you bear the sins of persecuting the Arians (Al-Ariyasiyyin). ‘And people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but God and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside God. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.’

  7. Ken Temple says:

    Islam was hostile and the first aggressors – the letters Muhammad sent implied that if we don’t accept Islam, that Islam would make war against them, and that is exactly what they did.

    The “client areas” were not “attacked first” – they were already a part of the greater Byzantine Christian Empire, Islam had no right to interfere with their own internal disagreements.

    I don’t agree with the Byzantine harshness nor the complete marriage of church and state power, but I also don’t see Islam as very just either – it does not pass the smell test – all of history shows Islam as a very aggressive and violent religion and does not allow Muslims to think or choose their own religion. The Hadith that says, “whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him” is disgusting and evil and unjust and whatever other word can be used to described such garbage.

    Islam has no right to impose Islamic law on others (as they did on the conquered Byzantine areas and Persia), and then claim that they are peaceful and quote the verse that says “there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) – what a joke that is!! Islam is nothing but force and compulsion!! Look at Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, etc. – all the same evil spirit of force and compulsion as Muhammad and Abu Bakr and Omar and the centuries of Jihads trying to conquer the world and force Sharia law down everyone else’s throat.

  8. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Hadith that says, “whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him”

    It is not what you think. This is mistranslation you get from someone who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
    (i) “Man badala deen faqtuluh” “Whosoever (of male adult) changes *his* religion fight *him* “. It refers to the male adult’s apostasy.

    قال ابن قدامة رحمه الله: “وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدل دينه فاقتلوه،
    Ibn Qudamah said: And the Messenger of Allah said “He who changes his Religion, then kill him.”

    But the penalty doesn’t include women and children.
    It was narrated from Ali, and Hassan, and Qatada: enslave do not kill; Because Abu Bakr enslaved women of Bani Hanifa, and their descendants, and gave upon the them a supervisory, a woman, and she bore him Mohammed bin Hanifah, this was the presence of the companions, did not deny, was the consensus. Said Abu Hanifa: forced to Islam with imprisoning and scourging, not kill; Because the Prophet, peace be upon him: Do not kill a woman.

    (ii) Moreover, the word “Qatl” doesn’t precisely mean “killing”, it could just mean fighting. For example Q.8, v.30 mentions the Mekkah heathens make efforts against Prophet Muhamamd with “Qatalu Ka” يَقْتُلُوكَ Certainly it doesn’t mean they succeeded in killing him, it just mean they fought him.

    Kitab Mabsut of Imam al-Sarakhsi (d. 1096) mentions, Abu Hanifa makes a reference to the historical precedence of the Apostasy War, that is a Caliph’s tradition according to which Abu Bakr enslaved the women and children of the apostatising tribe of Banu Hanifa and he presented Khawlah bint Ja’far to ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. She who eventually gave birth to Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya.
    According to al-Sarakhsi, Abu Hanifa has a stronger traditional and hstorical proof that a female apostate should be imprisoned and forced to embrace Islam again. She should be given thirty-nine lashes, then returned to prison until she repents.
    AI-Shaybani, Abu Yusuf, Qatada bin Di’ama have same opinion: a woman who reneged on Islam should be enslaved (tusta’ma).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al-Hanafiyyah
    Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was born in Medina about 633 CE (though also said to be during Umar’s era), the third of Ali’s sons. He was called Ibn al-Hanafiyyah after his mother, Khawlah bint Ja’far; she was known as Hanafiyyah, “the Hanafi woman”, after her tribe Banu Hanifah. After the death of Muhammad, the people of Yamamah were declared apostates by the Muslims for refusing to pay the zakat (religious tax); the men were killed (see Ridda wars), and the women were taken to Medina as slaves, Khawlah bint Ja’far among them. When her tribesmen found out, they approached Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked him to save her from slavery and to protect her family’s honor and prestige. Consequently, Ali ibn Abi Talib purchased her, set her free, and, after the death of Fatimah, married her.[1] Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the only child of Khawlah bint Ja’far. During his father’s lifetime he distinguished himself for piety, rectitude, and courage and effectiveness in war. During Ali’s caliphate at Kufa he was one of the caliph’s four chief lieutenants. He particularly distinguished himself at the battles of Jamal and Siffin.[2]
    Ibn al-Hanafiyyah was called “the Mahdi,” “the rightly-guided,” which then was simply a pledge of confidence in his knowledge, character, and judgment over those of the rival caliphs. In 692 CE he traveled to Damascus and swore allegiance to Abd al-Malik. In 700 he died in Medina.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawlah_bint_Ja%27far
    She was known as Hanafiyyah after her tribe Banu Hanifah. When people of Yamamah were declared apostates and were treasoneas for refusing to pay zakat (religious tax) to Abu Bakr and threatening the integrity of the emerging empire. They were killed and their women-folk were brought to Medina as slave girls, this woman also came to Medina with them. When her tribesmen came to know it they approached Ali ibn Abu Talib and requested him to save her from the blemish of slavery and protect her family’s honor and prestige.[citation needed] Consequently, Ali ibn Abu Talib set her free after purchasing and married her where after Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was born.

    One earliest Hanafite scholar Ibnul Humam (d.681) in Fathul Qadir wrote:
    “The reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and not for the reason of his disbelief. The punishment of disbelief is far greater with God. Therefore, only such an apostate shall be killed who is actively engaged in war; and usually it is a man, and not a woman. For the same reason, the Holy Prophet has forbidden to kill women. And for this very reason, an apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal. She is not killed because of her apostasy, but for her creating disorder (through war) on earth.” — 

  9. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Hadith that says, “whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him”

    It is not what you think. This is a common mistranslation you get from someone who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
    (i) “Man badala dinuh faqtuluh” “Whosoever (of male adult) changes *his* religion, fight *him* “.
    It refers particularly to the male adult’s apostasy because man’s apostasy incites war.

    قال ابن قدامة رحمه الله: “وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدل دينه فاقتلوه،
    Ibn Qudamah said: And the Messenger of Allah said “He who changes his Religion, then kill him.”

    But the penalty doesn’t include women and children.
    One earliest Hanafite scholar Ibnul Humam (d.681) in Fathul Qadir explains the reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and the action of engaging in war is committed usually by a man, and not a woman, yet apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal.

    Kitab Mabsut of Imam al-Sarakhsi (d. 1096) mentions, Abu Hanifa makes a valid reference to the historical precedence of the “Apostasy War”, that is the1st Caliphate battle, according to which Abu Bakr enslaved the women and children of one apostatising tribe of Banu Hanifa. Even Bakr presented a Hanifa’s woman Khawlah bint Ja’far to ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. She who eventually gave birth to Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya.
    According to al-Sarakhsi, therefore Abu Hanifa has a more stronger traditional and historical proof that a female apostate should be imprisoned and forced to embrace Islam again. She should be given thirty-nine lashes, then returned to prison until she repents.

    (ii) Moreover, the word “Qatl” doesn’t precisely mean “killing”, it could just mean fighting. For example Q.8, v.30 mentions the Mekkah heathens make efforts against Prophet Muhamamd with “Qatalu Ka” يَقْتُلُوكَ Certainly it doesn’t mean they succeeded in killing him, it just mean they fought him.

    Kitab Mabsut of Imam al-Sarakhsi (d. 1096) mentions, Abu Hanifa makes a reference to the historical precedence of the Apostasy War, that is a Caliph’s tradition according to which Abu Bakr enslaved the women and children of the apostatising tribe of Banu Hanifa and he presented Khawlah bint Ja’far to ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. She who eventually gave birth to Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya.
    According to al-Sarakhsi, Abu Hanifa has a stronger traditional and historical proof that a female apostate should be imprisoned and forced to embrace Islam again. She should be given thirty-nine lashes, then returned to prison until she repents.
    AI-Shaybani, Abu Yusuf, Qatada bin Di’ama have same opinion: a woman who reneged on Islam should be enslaved (tusta’ma).

    One earliest Hanafite scholar Ibnul Humam (d.681) in Fathul Qadir wrote:
    “The reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and not for the reason of his disbelief. The punishment of disbelief is far greater with God. Therefore, only such an apostate shall be killed who is actively engaged in war; and usually it is a man, and not a woman. For the same reason, the Holy Prophet has forbidden to kill women. And for this very reason, an apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal. She is not killed because of her apostasy, but for her creating disorder (through war) on earth.”

    ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_al-Hanafiyyah
    Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was born in Medina about 633 CE (though also said to be during Umar’s era), the third of Ali’s sons. He was called Ibn al-Hanafiyyah after his mother, Khawlah bint Ja’far; she was known as Hanafiyyah, “the Hanafi woman”, after her tribe Banu Hanifah. After the death of Muhammad, the people of Yamamah were declared apostates by the Muslims for refusing to pay the zakat (religious tax); the men were killed (see Ridda wars), and the women were taken to Medina as slaves, Khawlah bint Ja’far among them. When her tribesmen found out, they approached Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked him to save her from slavery and to protect her family’s honor and prestige. Consequently, Ali ibn Abi Talib purchased her, set her free, and, after the death of Fatimah, married her.[1] Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the only child of Khawlah bint Ja’far. During his father’s lifetime he distinguished himself for piety, rectitude, and courage and effectiveness in war. During Ali’s caliphate at Kufa he was one of the caliph’s four chief lieutenants. He particularly distinguished himself at the battles of Jamal and Siffin.[2]
    Ibn al-Hanafiyyah was called “the Mahdi,” “the rightly-guided,” which then was simply a pledge of confidence in his knowledge, character, and judgment over those of the rival caliphs. In 692 CE he traveled to Damascus and swore allegiance to Abd al-Malik. In 700 he died in Medina.

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawlah_bint_Ja%27far
    She was known as Hanafiyyah after her tribe Banu Hanifah. When people of Yamamah were declared apostates and were treasoneas for refusing to pay zakat (religious tax) to Abu Bakr and threatening the integrity of the emerging empire. They were killed and their women-folk were brought to Medina as slave girls, this woman also came to Medina with them. When her tribesmen came to know it they approached Ali ibn Abu Talib and requested him to save her from the blemish of slavery and protect her family’s honor and prestige.[citation needed] Consequently, Ali ibn Abu Talib set her free after purchasing and married her where after Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was born.

  10. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Islam has no right to impose Islamic law on others”

    Unfortunately, the early Caliphate does not have a Non-aggression agreement whatsoever with neighboring countries, except that with Ethiopia. Had Byzantium and Persia empire immediately forged the peace treaty with Caliphate, Moslems would have not found a sufficient reason to fight on behalf of our Non-Moslem allies, such as Al-Ariyasiyyin in the north and Christian Lakhmid in the east.

    Abu Hanifa makes a valid reference to the historical precedence of the “Apostasy War”, that is the 1st Caliphate battle, according to which Abu Bakr enslaved the women and children of one apostatising tribe of Banu Hanifa. All early Moslems agree with decision of Abu Bakr in the Apostasy War: the male apostates were killed, and the women were taken to Medina as slaves, Khawlah bint Ja’far among them. When her tribesmen found out, they approached Ali ibn Abi Talib and asked him to save her from slavery and to protect her family’s honor and prestige. Consequently, Ali ibn Abi Talib purchased her, set her free, and, after the death of Fatimah, married her. She eventually gave birth to Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya. Therefore Abu Hanifa has a more stronger traditional and historical proof that a female apostate should be imprisoned and forced to embrace Islam again. She should be given thirty-nine lashes, then returned to prison until she repents.

  11. θ says:

    Abraham is one unique Prophet:
    (i) Being honored as Uswa Hasana (Q.60, v.4) alongside Prophet Muhammad.
    Name of Abraham is mentioned in the prayer’s Salawat.

    For Moslems who live happy without wars and religious oppression, the life of Abraham is one Qur’anic valid option altogether with Prophet Muhammad for Moslem’s Best Role of Conduct.
    Abraham doesn’t marry the post-pubescent woman under 20 y.o.
    Abraham has two wives only at one occasion.
    Abraham doesn’t permit the hitmen to kill the insulter in warfare.
    Abraham doesn’t let a tribal chief judge the male captives with mass-beheading.

    (ii) Being honored as “Khayr al-Bariyyah” (per Q.98, v.7) by Prophet Muhammad.

    Muslim, Book 030, Number 5841.
    Anas b. Malik reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger and said: O the best of creation (Khayr al-Bariyyah). Thereupon Allah’s Messenger said: He is Ibrahim.
    Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3352
    Anas bin Malik narrated that:A man said to the Prophet: O best of creatures (Khayr al-Bariyyah). So he said: That is Ibrahim.
    Abi Dawud, Book 41, Hadith 4655
    Anas said: A man said to the Messenger of Allah: O best of all creatures (Khayr al-Bariyyah). The Messenger of Allah said : That was Abraham.

    (iii) Being identical in resemblance and stature with Prophet Muhammad’s.
    Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 328
    I also saw myself among the group of apostles. I saw Moses saying prayer and found him to be a well-built man as if he was a man of the tribe of Shanu’a. I saw Jesus son of Mary offering prayer, of all of men he had the closest resemblance with ‘Urwa b. Masu’d al-Thaqafi. I saw Ibrahim offering prayer; he had the closest resemblance with your companion (the Prophet himself) amongst people. When the time of prayer came I led them.

    (iv) One of many major Prophets who shall decline to plead to Allah on behalf of all human sinners in the Afterlife, but rather shall ask them to go to Moses.
    Bukhari, Book 93, Hadith 507.
    They will go to Abraham and say, ‘O Abraham! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?’ He will say to them, ‘My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. I had told three lies (Abu Haiyan the sub-narrator mentioned them in the Hadith) myself! myself! myself! Go to someone else; go to Moses.’

Comments are closed.