Correcting Some of James White's Misinformation To The Public

 

By

 

Bassam Zawadi

 

 

Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries engaged in a short discussion with Nadir Ahmed on his radio show and in that discussion he distorted the meaning of one of the Saheeh Bukhari hadith.

 

Also in two of his debates with Shabir Ally (buy them here and here) he brought up certain 'Qur'an confirming Bible' arguments (ones that he most likely borrowed from his close buddy, the infamous Shamoun).

 

After listening to the show and the debates, I emailed James White and pointed out to him his faults and referred him to my articles so that he could educate himself.

 

I am going to present to the public the email discussion that I had with James White on these issues (not with his blessings, but at least with his permission of course). 

 

You will notice plenty of grammatical errors on my end, since I wasn't planning initially to make these emails go public, however what I am trying to say is definitely understandable.

 

Enjoy.

 

My First Email to AOMIN So that I can get in touch with James White

Well my name is Bassam Zawadi, the owner of www.call-to-monotheism.com
 
I am a Muslim apologist, you can clearly see this by just looking at Answering Islam's updates and I am also currently co-authoring a book with David Wood, for we are debating the Prophethood of Muhammad.
 
I would basically like to contact Mr. James and inform him that he is spreading incorrect information about Islam and I would like to tell him why that is so.
 
If his email is private and he may not be contacted through the website, then I definitely understand that you must seek his permission before letting out his email.
 
However, if there is a way to contact him and this way is available to the public, then please if you don't mind tell me how to do so.
 
Thank you Sir.

 

James First Email Response

Mr. Zawadi:

Please feel free to explain where you think I am "spreading incorrect information about Islam."  I surely have no interest in doing so, though, I have yet to meet the Islamic apologist who shares my concerns on that level, sadly.  I continue to search for the Islamic apologist who accurately represents, and argues against, the Trinity.  But I can keep looking!  So please, let me know what your objections are.

Bassam

Dear Mr. White
 
I hope you are doing fine sir.
 
I want to say that I have enjoyed listening to many of your debates and you can check my purchase history from your website for the proof :)
 
Sir, I wanted to correct you on a couple of points if you don't mind me doing so. (there are other points, but these two for now)
 
First point I would like to correct you on is when you said to Nadir Ahmed on your radio show that Saheeh Bukhari states that only one person (Abi Khuzayma) knew of a Quranic verse. However, this is not entirely true in the way that you make it out to be and I kindly ask you to refer to my article over here
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/are_the_verses_from_surah_9_128_129_and_surah_33_23_falsely_added_to_the_quran_
 
Second point, is that I notice in your two debates with Shabir Ally that you try to argue that the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of your Bible. I have a whole series of articles that refute that over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__ 
 
However, I believe that you have more specifically referred to verses that speak about the Quran confirming the previous scriptures (addressed here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible), of the Qur'an asking the Muslims to judge by your scripture (refuted over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures) and you mentioned the hadith about the Prophet putting the torah on a pillow case and respecting it (addressed here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_prophet_claimed_that_the_corrupted_torah_was_revealed_from_god and make sure to see my rebuttal to Shamoun on it as well)
 
In regards to the Trinity Mr. White; I believe that the arguments from unitarian Christians themselves are already sufficient. I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you on this topic though.
 
I like the way you outwardly treat Muslims in opposition to other Christians like Sam Shamoun (see here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_). In this way, we can have better relations with each other.
 
Christians need to understand that Muslims don't tolerate mockery, blasphemy and sarcasm towards our religion; however, we do tolerate and even praise objective and sincere criticism communicated properly with manners.
 
You take care of your self now.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Bassam Zawadi  

 

James White replied back saying:

Sir, I wanted to correct you on a couple of points if you don't mind me doing so. (there are other points, but these two for now)
 
First point I would like to correct you on is when you said to Nadir Ahmed on your radio show that Saheeh Bukhari states that only one person (Abi Khuzayma) knew of a Quranic verse. However, this is not entirely true in the way that you make it out to be and I kindly ask you to refer to my article over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/are_the_verses_from_surah_9_128_129_and_surah_33_23_falsely_added_to_the_quran_

This is an invalid URL.  I cannot read your comments.

I can, however, read Bukhari:

6.509, "till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him."

6.510, ""A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari."

Now my Arabic is still on a basic level, but I am making progress, and I can read the Arabic of 6.509,

 

I believe the English translation provided in Bukhari is correct at this point, as it is asserting that Zaid bin Thabit did not find it with anyone but him, that is, Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari.  If someone wishes to argue that the text existed in someone else's memory, etc., that is fine, but likewise utterly irrelevant, as those people were not consulted in the compilation work.  Surah 9 reads the way it reads today because these words were found in the memory of a single individual.  This is a key issue regarding the reliability of the recension/collation of the Qur'anic sources noted by Al-Bukhari.

Second point, is that I notice in your two debates with Shabir Ally that you try to argue that the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of your Bible. I have a whole series of articles that refute that over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__ 

Once again, your embedded URL is defective.

I had assumed, Bassam, that your allegations of misrepresentation would, in fact, be issues of disagreement.  I believe Sam Shamoun and others have done a fine job establishing the case, and I am well aware of the arguments in response.  I find them anachronistic and flawed.  If I said "All Muslims admit the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of the Bible," I would be misrepresenting Islam.  But what I say is, "A strong case can be made that the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of the Bible."  Surely the two are different statements, and since I can back up the second statement, it is not a misrepresentation.  It is a matter of dispute.  I would say that your position, aside from lacking the necessary support of the earliest centuries of Islamic history, eviscerates the very argument Muhammad attempts to make for his own prophethood in Surah 5, for example.  So once again, this is not a misrepresentation.


However, I believe that you have more specifically referred to verses that speak about the Quran confirming the previous scriptures (addressed here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible), of the Qur'an asking the Muslims to judge by your scripture (refuted over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures) and you mentioned the hadith about the Prophet putting the torah on a pillow case and respecting it (addressed here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_prophet_claimed_that_the_corrupted_torah_was_revealed_from_god and make sure to see my rebuttal to Shamoun on it as well)

Once again, all of your URLs are defective, but it matters not: you are simply saying, "Hey, these are issues of debate."  Of course they are.  But it is not misrepresentation to raise issues of debate.  I obviously do not agree with you.  I can make a case for my side, you make a case for yours.  That is not the same as misrepresentation. 


In regards to the Trinity Mr. White; I believe that the arguments from unitarian Christians themselves are already sufficient. I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you on this topic though.

There is no such thing as a Unitarian Christian, of course; that is like referring to Muslims who reject Muhammad as a prophet.  No such thing, yes?  What is more, that is hardly relevant to what I said.  I said Islamic apologists misrepresent the belief they are attacking.  I believe you may need to be a good bit more accurate in your use of terminology, Bassam. 


 I like the way you outwardly treat Muslims in opposition to other Christians like Sam Shamoun (see here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_). In this way, we can have better relations with each other.

Once again, your link is defective.  But I honestly have no interest in reading attacks upon Sam from Islamic apologists.  I have already been the object of the vitriol of the followers of Nadir Ahmed.  I am sure as I do more debates, write books, etc., that there will be page after page of personal attacks upon me on the Internet.  Sadly, this is nothing new.


Christians need to understand that Muslims don't tolerate mockery, blasphemy and sarcasm towards our religion; however, we do tolerate and evne praise objective and sincere criticism communicated properly with manners.

Bassam, my brothers and sisters in Christ are imprisoned, beaten, and murdered, by Muslims every day around the world.  Muslims mock, blaspheme, and are sarcastic, toward the Christian faith daily, and I am not just referring to "radical" Muslims.  I refer to imams and mullahs and Islamic leaders in Islamic countries.  One of the main reasons I do what I do is to encourage those brothers and sisters who suffer under Islamic persecution.  I believe Christians, who serve the one who called Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, are bound to speak the truth in love, even when persecuted for so doing.  God is just, and justice will be done in the end.

Thank you for writing.

 

Bassam's Response:

Dear Mr. White
 
I would have to say that I am disappointed by the quality of your response despite your credentials and the opinion (which was pretty positive) that I already had of you before I attempted to contact you.
 
I will tell you why.
 

I can, however, read Bukhari:

6.509, "till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him."

6.510, ""A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari."

Now my Arabic is still on a basic level, but I am making progress, and I can read the Arabic of 6.509,

 

I believe the English translation provided in Bukhari is correct at this point, as it is asserting that Zaid bin Thabit did not find it with anyone but him, that is, Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari.  If someone wishes to argue that the text existed in someone else's memory, etc., that is fine, but likewise utterly irrelevant, as those people were not consulted in the compilation work.  Surah 9 reads the way it reads today because these words were found in the memory of a single individual.  This is a key issue regarding the reliability of the recension/collation of the Qur'anic sources noted by Al-Bukhari.

 

I really wish besides answering back you could have insisted that I make the URL link work or have emailed you my argument.

The link is working with me. If it is not working with you then go to www.call-to-monotheism.com then click on 'Refutations Against Polemics' then click on 'Refutation to Other Misconceptions' then click on 'Refutings Arguments Made Against the Qur'an' then click on 'Refuting Arguments Made Against the Preservation of the Qur'an' then click on 'Quranic Variants' then click on the sixth link.

James, to read that line from Bukhari and argue that Abi Khuzaymah was the only person who had the verse in memory is incorrect. Read what Bukhari says carefully...


Saheeh Bukhari
 

Volume 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 379.

Narated By Zaid bin Thabit : When we wrote the Holy Qur'an, I missed one of the Verses of Surat-al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. Then we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. The Verse was:

 

So clearly,  Zayd already knew about a verse. If he didn't already know about this verse then how did he know that he must go out and search for it? How can he go out searching for something that he didn't know even existed if we were to assume that only Abi Khuzayma knew about the verse?

What Zayd was referring to was that only Abi Khuzayma had it with him IN TEXT FORM.

Furthermore, Ibn Kathir says...
 

:    " "    :                                                                                                                   

And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara'a (Surah 9) 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves' to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said 'Who is with you on this?' He said 'I don't know' and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129)

 Abu Bakr instructed Zayd to collect both written evidence and evidence from memory. That is why Zayd was searching for those verses (in text form).

There are many more details in my article that prove that the other companions also knew of the Quranic verse and not only Abi Khuzaymah. If you are a sincere truth seeker, I urge you to visit my article for the evidence.

  

Once again, your embedded URL is defective.

I had assumed, Bassam, that your allegations of misrepresentation would, in fact, be issues of disagreement.  I believe Sam Shamoun and others have done a fine job establishing the case, and I am well aware of the arguments in response.  I find them anachronistic and flawed.  If I said "All Muslims admit the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of the Bible," I would be misrepresenting Islam.  But what I say is, "A strong case can be made that the Qur'an affirms the authenticity of the Bible."  Surely the two are different statements, and since I can back up the second statement, it is not a misrepresentation.  It is a matter of dispute.  I would say that your position, aside from lacking the necessary support of the earliest centuries of Islamic history, eviscerates the very argument Muhammad attempts to make for his own prophethood in Surah 5, for example.  So once again, this is not a misrepresentation.


Once again, all of your URLs are defective, but it matters not: you are simply saying, "Hey, these are issues of debate."  Of course they are.  But it is not misrepresentation to raise issues of debate.  I obviously do not agree with you.  I can make a case for my side, you make a case for yours.  That is not the same as misrepresentation. 
 
 
Again, you have not seen all and proper Muslim responses to this. In one of my articles I clearly prove that the early Muslims believed in the textual corruption of the Bible.
 
Go to www.call-to-monotheism.com then click on 'Refutations Against Polemics' then click on 'Refutation to Other Misconceptions' then click on 'Does Islam Endorse the Bible' then click on the first article.
 
You know what the funny thing about your response is Mr. White? I can say the same exact thing about Jesus being divine. Since whether Jesus claiming divinity in the Bible is a matter of dispute by those that claim that claim to adhere to the bible, then that means that if i take that position then I am not misrepresenting your faith!
EVEN UNTO THIS DAY you have people claiming that the earth is flat. Does that mean I can't accuse them of misrepresenting scientific facts since it is a matter of dispute? Come on Mr. White.
 
It all comes down to the evidence and I believe that you don't have any. I don't view you as a truth seeker if you continue to rely on Christian interpretation of the Qur'an and aren't interested in reading what Muslims like my self have to say about it.

There is no such thing as a Unitarian Christian, of course; that is like referring to Muslims who reject Muhammad as a prophet.  No such thing, yes?  What is more, that is hardly relevant to what I said.  I said Islamic apologists misrepresent the belief they are attacking.  I believe you may need to be a good bit more accurate in your use of terminology, Bassam. 

Mr. White, I was only referring to them as Unitarian Christians only because they label themselves that way. Muslims don't believe that people like yourself are truly Christian anyways. We don't truly believe that you follow the teachings of Christ. However, we only call you Christians since this is what you label yourselves, thus to avoid necessary confusion by labeling you with some other name and no one knows what we are talking about.
 

Once again, your link is defective.  But I honestly have no interest in reading attacks upon Sam from Islamic apologists.  I have already been the object of the vitriol of the followers of Nadir Ahmed.  I am sure as I do more debates, write books, etc., that there will be page after page of personal attacks upon me on the Internet.  Sadly, this is nothing new.

 

This is where you have strongly irritated me. That article above is not a personal attack on Sam Shamoun. On the contrary, it is an article that talks about Shamoun's attacks upon us. Since you might not believe Muslims such as my self you can even go and ask David Wood your self. David Wood himself approached Shamoun and told him to stop being rude towards Muslims.

I'm disappointed you made a judgment on something before reading it.

 

Bassam, my brothers and sisters in Christ are imprisoned, beaten, and murdered, by Muslims every day around the world.  Muslims mock, blaspheme, and are sarcastic, toward the Christian faith daily, and I am not just referring to "radical" Muslims.  I refer to imams and mullahs and Islamic leaders in Islamic countries.  One of the main reasons I do what I do is to encourage those brothers and sisters who suffer under Islamic persecution.  I believe Christians, who serve the one who called Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, are bound to speak the truth in love, even when persecuted for so doing.  God is just, and justice will be done in the end.

Thank you for writing.

 

James, you have to understand that I have spiritual Muslim brothers and sisters and Christian brothers and sisters in humanity suffering under the terrorist state of Israel, which is being supported by your government and by several Christian zionist organizations. In the United States you have Christian Zionists trying to interpret the Bible to justify support for the state of Israel, which is demolishing homes and preventing food and water from reaching civilians (haven't you seen the latest news on Gaza?). Your government continues to maintain support for a country that has unjustly taken the land of others in the name of the Bible. (both Old Testament and New Testament)

Muslim apologists struggle hard to show that Islam does not tolerate unjustified harm towards civilians, why haven't you done the same for us?

Anyways, lets not get political. All I wanted to say to you is the following Mr. White...

I might appear as a layman to you since I am not as famous as people like Shabir Ally. However, I guarantee you that you would find the quality of my arguments to be much better in certain topics that Shabir Ally might not specialize in, since I know Arabic and I have access to several books of scholars (includes commentaries and books of jurisprudence), thus can provide better and more scholarly answers to arguments. Therefore, I kindly ask you 'to give me a chance'

If you are interested in learning, then I kindly ask you to refer to my site. Otherwise, don't claim that you have seen all Muslim responses to your arguments and your not satisfied with any, since that would be false.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

 

James Whites's Response

I can, however, read Bukhari:

6.509, "till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him."

6.510, ""A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari."

Now my Arabic is still on a basic level, but I am making progress, and I can read the Arabic of 6.509,

 

I believe the English translation provided in Bukhari is correct at this point, as it is asserting that Zaid bin Thabit did not find it with anyone but him, that is, Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari.  If someone wishes to argue that the text existed in someone else's memory, etc., that is fine, but likewise utterly irrelevant, as those people were not consulted in the compilation work.  Surah 9 reads the way it reads today because these words were found in the memory of a single individual.  This is a key issue regarding the reliability of the recension/collation of the Qur'anic sources noted by Al-Bukhari.

 

I really wish besides answering back you could have insisted that I make the URL link work or have emailed you my argument.

I am sorry, sir.when I send folks defective URLs, I generally do not hold them responsible for that.  J

The link is working with me. If it is not working with you then go to http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ then click on 'Refutations Against Polemics' then click on 'Refutation to Other Misconceptions' then click on 'Refutings Arguments Made Against the Qur'an' then click on 'Refuting Arguments Made Against the Preservation of the Qur'an' then click on 'Quranic Variants' then click on the sixth link.

Your article, sir, is filled with citations that look like this:

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in Fathul Bari...

  , ,    ,

Exactly how is one supposed to interact with screens full of gibberish?  I brought up your page in FireFox, Opera, and IE 7.0: same in all.  Are you trying to use Unicode?  Or a proprietary font?  In any case, it is not possible to interact with screens full of gibberish.  Your later citation of Arabic worked.  How they are different, I cannot begin to tell.

James, to read that line from Bukhari and argue that Abi Khuzaymah was the only person who had the verse in memory is incorrect. Read what Bukhari says carefully...

I have, Bassam, and again, we disagree on its reading.  You are depending upon later commentators reading concepts back into the hadith to "clean it up" so to speak.  While common, I am under no obligation to accept later insertions into the text.  You likewise assume that the reference of hearing Allah's Apostle reciting it (33:23) is relevant to the 9:128-129, but the text does not say this.  In fact, the text is very explicit, as I pointed out, in saying just the opposite: that this portion was not found with anyone else.  It does not say "it was not found in text form with anyone else.  This is a later emendation that seems to have derived from the embarrassment caused by the honesty of Al-Bukhari at this point.  However, I note that the later Ibn-Kathir expanded statement you provided (expanded beyond what I find in my ten-volume set---I would be very interested in the textual history behind the expansion, and why that material, vital as it is, would not be reproduced in my ten volume set) seems tailor made to contradict Al-Bukhari.  I see many problems with your theory.  First, "you used to write the divine inspiration for Allah's Apostle" begs the question as to how Zaid would have to search for 9:128-129 in such a context; this does not explain the phrase "I did not find it with anyone but him" as I noted in my previous e-mail?if you wish to insert a concept of textuality back into these words, can you tell me what in Bukhari is supportive of this later emendation?  Is there something in the Arabic you can point to that would tell us that what he really meant to say was "I did not find the written text with anyone but him" given that the context of his search is directly said to include both written and non-written sources?  In fact, isn't the very concept of the Qurra' one that flies directly in the face of your insistence upon textuality?  If all of the Qur'an was already in textual form, why worry about the death of the Qurra' at Yamama?  Indeed, could you comment on the following Arabic text?

 

 

Could you explain how this is not indicating a fear on Abu Bakr's part that a kathirun mina of the Qur'an might be dhahaba?  How could the death of memorizers threaten an already existent written text?  This is where I see a fatal flaw in your reasoning and your argumentation.  You see, as one who has taught history, I go to the texts of history directly.  Take for example the YouTube series I posted recently on the epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, an early Christian document.  I go to the original languages and the original context and seek to understand the author in that context.  I am doing the same with this text in Al-Bukhari, and though my Arabic is still basic, it seems to me that it is indisputable that:

1)  The collection was from both written and unwritten sources;

2)  Abu Bakr was fearful of a loss of a major portion of the Qur'an through the death of the Qurra'

3)  This clearly indicates that there was a major portion of the Qur'an that had yet to be textualized;

4)  The ayahs in Surah 9 were found not in written form, but "with" a single individual.

Inserting textualization, as you insist upon doing via a later comment in Ibn Kathir is an invalid means of doing historical exegesis, Bassam.  It is exactly what Roman Catholics do to the early church writers.  You will have to provide something from these texts in Al-Bukhari to substantiate your insistence upon your position that you have not provided thus far.

 

What Zayd was referring to was that only Abi Khuzayma had it with him IN TEXT FORM.

 

Prove this, please, from Bukhari alone not from later commentators.

 

Furthermore, Ibn Kathir says...
 

:    " "   :                                                                                                                    

And Ahmad said: Ali bin Bahr said that Ali bin Muhammad bin Salma on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq on the authority of Yahya bin Ebad on the authority of his father Ebad bin Zubayr may Allah be pleased with him said that Al Harith (Zayd) approached bin Khuzaymah with these two verses from the ending of Surah Al Bara'a (Surah 9) 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves' to Abdullah ibn Umar Al Khattab so he said 'Who is with you on this?' He said 'I don't know' and by Allah I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I learned it and memorized it then Umar said: And I testify that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129)

 

Abu Bakr instructed Zayd to collect both written evidence and evidence from memory. That is why Zayd was searching for those verses (in text form).

 

You have not substantiated this final insistence from Bukhari but only from this expanded text that I do not find in my edition of Ibn Kathir.  How do you explain the contradiction?

 

There are many more details in my article that prove that the other companions also knew of the Quranic verse and not only Abi Khuzaymah. If you are a sincere truth seeker, I urge you to visit my article for the evidence.

 

 Well, Bassam, I'm sure you believe your writings are the final word, but I'm afraid I am not quite ready to accept them as such.  J 


You know what the funny thing about your response is Mr. White? I can say the same exact thing about Jesus being divine. Since whether Jesus claiming divinity in the Bible is a matter of dispute by those that claim that claim to adhere to the bible, then that means that if i take that position then I am not misrepresenting your faith!

 

This is a classic mixture of categories, Bassam.  The deity of Christ is definitional of the Christian faith against which Islam reacted in the Qur'an: it is just as definitional as the Shahada is for Islam.  Recognizing that there are disputes concerning the proper reading of Al-Bukhari, or whether the Qur'an originally denied the preservation of the Bible, is not in the same category.  If it were, would this not have been a major element of the earliest written materials coming from Islam against Christianity?  And yet you surely know that centuries passed with only the allegation of the corruption of interpretation and meaning rather than the corruption of the text itself.  So once again, you have confused categories and what is definitional and what is not.


 
EVEN UNTO THIS DAY you have people claiming that the earth is flat. Does that mean I can't accuse them of misrepresenting scientific facts since it is a matter of dispute? Come on Mr. White.
 

There is no logical or rational connection between this statement and anything that has come before.  J


It all comes down to the evidence and I believe that you don't have any. I don't view you as a truth seeker if you continue to rely on Christian interpretation of the Qur'an and aren't interested in reading what Muslims like my self have to say about it.

 

Of course, I reject the idea that agreeing with you defines whether I am a truth seeker, Bassam.   

There is no such thing as a Unitarian Christian, of course; that is like referring to Muslims who reject Muhammad as a prophet.  No such thing, yes?  What is more, that is hardly relevant to what I said.  I said Islamic apologists misrepresent the belief they are attacking.  I believe you may need to be a good bit more accurate in your use of terminology, Bassam. 

Mr. White, I was only referring to them as Unitarian Christians only because they label themselves that way. Muslims don't believe that people like yourself are truly Christian anyways. We don't truly believe that you follow the teachings of Christ. However, we only call you Christians since this is what you label yourselves, thus to avoid necessary confusion by labeling you with some other name and no one knows what we are talking about.


 
So you would have no problem with my saying you are not a Muslim, because you are not submitted to God as He has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Just as long as we are on a level playing field here.


 

Once again, your link is defective.  But I honestly have no interest in reading attacks upon Sam from Islamic apologists.  I have already been the object of the vitriol of the followers of Nadir Ahmed.  I am sure as I do more debates, write books, etc., that there will be page after page of personal attacks upon me on the Internet.  Sadly, this is nothing new.

This is where you have strongly irritated me. That article above is not a personal attack on Sam Shamoun. On the contrary, it is an article that talks about Shamoun's attacks upon us. Since you might not believe Muslims such as my self you can even go and ask David Wood your self. David Wood himself approached Shamoun and told him to stop being rude towards Muslims.

Im disappointed you made a judgment on something before reading it.

And I am disappointed, Bassam, that you would think such things relevant and would poison our conversation with such things right from the start. 

Bassam, my brothers and sisters in Christ are imprisoned, beaten, and murdered, by Muslims every day around the world.  Muslims mock, blaspheme, and are sarcastic, toward the Christian faith daily, and I am not just referring to "radical" Muslims.  I refer to imams and mullahs and Islamic leaders in Islamic countries.  One of the main reasons I do what I do is to encourage those brothers and sisters who suffer under Islamic persecution.  I believe Christians, who serve the one who called Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, are bound to speak the truth in love, even when persecuted for so doing.  God is just, and justice will be done in the end.

Thank you for writing.

James, you have to understand that I have spiritual Muslim brothers and sisters and Christian brothers and sisters in humanity suffering under the terrorist state of Israel, which is being supported by your government

Excuse me, but please, leave your prejudices outside of my e-mail box.  It is absurd to think of the United States government as a "Christian" government, let alone to say it is "my" government.  I doubt there are more than 50 actual Christians in the Congress of the United States, yet I hear Muslim imams preaching against all America as the "cross worshippers."  What utter insanity!  I have nothing to do with Israel, no matter what grossly prejudicial or biased things you think about the nation. 

and by several Christian zionist organizations. In the United States you have Christian Zionists trying to interpret the Bible to justify support for the state of Israel which is demolishing homes and preventing food and water from reaching civilians (haven't you seen the latest news on Gaza?). Your government continues to maintain support for a country that has unjustly taken the land of others in the name of the Bible. (both Old Testament and New Testament)

I will assume from all of this that you are not in the United States.   But again---irrelevant en toto.

Muslim apologists struggle hard to show that Islam does not tolerate unjustified harm towards civilians, why haven't you done the same for us?

What?  I have no idea what your point is: mine is that your religion persecutes, imprisons, and kills the followers of mine, and it does so consistently with its own sacred texts and mainly under those regimes that establish sharia.  Any Christian who has ever persecuted, imprisoned, or murdered a Muslim, did so in opposition to the specific teachings of the New Testament regarding the nature of evangelism, the Church, and its relationship to the State. 

 

Bassam's Response

 Dear Mr. White
 
I hope you are fine.
 
I am sorry, sir.when I send folks defective URLs, I generally do not hold them responsible for that.  J

Ya, but I was 'holding you responsible' for not informing me to send you the correct link (the link is working anyways, I don't know what is wrong with your computer) besides make an indirect judgment on whether my article sufficiently addresses the argument or not. 
 
 
Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in Fathul Bari...

  , ,    ,

Exactly how is one supposed to interact with screens full of gibberish?  I brought up your page in FireFox, Opera, and IE 7.0: same in all.  Are you trying to use Unicode?  Or a proprietary font?  In any case, it is not possible to interact with screens full of gibberish.  Your later citation of Arabic worked.  How they are different, I cannot begin to tell.


 
Mr. White
 
First of all, on my article, you press right-click, then choose the 'encoding' option then choose 'Arabic (Windows)'. That way you enable the Arabic text.
 
Secondly, the English translation in red font is already below it and that is the essential thing that you are required to read.
 
So I really don't understand what difficulties you are facing here.
 
  
Many of your comments were about you challenging me to prove from Bukhari ALONE the point that I am trying to make and that I am supposed to provide textual evidence or something like that.
 
This clearly shows how you falsely assume that the standards that you apply to your faith necessitates that we apply the same to Islam.
 
I am in no obligation what so ever to prove from Bukhari ALONE a point. No Muslim scholar does such a thing. We have several hadith collections that can explain each other. Note, the following points that weaken your argument...
 
 
1) Abu Bakr issues an order that the collection must be made from both textual and oral sources.
 
2) There was no opposition towards Abi Khuzayma from any of the companions. There is no historical evidence that suggests that people were arguing about the validity of these verses and its difficult to believe that he would have got away with this lie since the Muslims recite the whole Quran in taraweeh prayers every Ramadan.
 
3) The statement "and I found it with no one else except..." could have three possible interpretations in light of the context Zayd was speaking...
 
First, no one else had it in oral or textual form (what you argue)


Second, no one else had it in oral form


Third, no one else had it in textual form (which I argue)
 
4) I argued that the third choice is more likely since we have authentic narrations stating that the other companions also remembered the verse once they heard it and no this is not an Ibn Kathir interpretation of the text. He quotes the companion's reactions.
 
Also, it is clear from 'Bukhari alone' when I gave the Surah 33 example that Abu Bakr insisted in collecting the Quran from both textual and oral sources. If that wasn't the case then Zayd wouldn't have wasted time searching for a verse he already knew about. You insisted that it wasn't relevant to the Surah 9 case. This is where you are wrong. Because we see the same kind of language that Zayd employs in regards to Surah 9, to Surah 33 as well.
 
 
Notice what Zayd says...
 
 

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 062.

Narated By Kharija bin Zaid : Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Qur'an was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was: "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23)
 

Volume 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 307.

Narated By Zaid bin Thabit : When we collected the fragramentary manuscripts of the Qur'an into copies, I missed one of the Verses of Surat al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reading. Finally I did not find it with anybody except Khuzaima Al-Ansari, whose witness was considered by Allah's Apostle equal to the witness of two men. And that Verse was: 'Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah.'


 
Notice, how Zayd also says that he didnt' find the respective verse from Surah 33 with anyone else except Khuzaima. HOWEVER, I already showed that Zayd knew about the verse in advance because of his statement...
 
 

which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting

  

Notice that Zaid admits that he already knew about the verse since he heard the Prophet reciting it before, yet he claims that no one else except Khuzaima had it. How can that be? If Zaid already knew about it then that doesn't mean that ONLY Khuzaima had it in the sense that you make it out to be. 

This clearly shows that he was referring to Khuzaima as being the only one having it in textual form.

 

The context makes it clear and the same is also applied to Surah 9.

You strictly demand that the Bukhari text says what you want it to say and that is 'TEXT FORM'. However, it doesn't have to say that, since it is clear by looking at everything together that this is the correct understanding.

If you don't want to be open minded and sincere then that's your problem.

You and I both know very well that you wouldn't apply these same standards to your faith. You interpret verses in your Bible to mean something even though they don't explicitly state it. You sometimes try to understand the context and by looking at other verses, you derive an understanding. Yet, you are not willing to do the same here.


You asked why Abu Bakr would be worried about the huffaz dying if the Quran was already available in text.
 
Well, preservation from memory was more essential than preservation in text form to them. Because one haafiz could have all the Quran in his head while no person had all the Quran in his possession in textual form.
 
Secondly, Abu Bakr needed these people to be alive in order to verify the veracity of the Quranic collection in textual form, since I already stated that Abu Bakr demanded collection from textual sources and from the memory of the companions.
 
 
And yet you surely know that centuries passed with only the allegation of the corruption of interpretation and meaning rather than the corruption of the text itself. 
 
 
NO I don't know 'surely know that' and I challenge you to prove this. All of answering islam's relevant arguments have been refuted on my site. You are wrong and I am challenging you directly to show such a thing. 
 
I clearly show from my article here
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_endorses_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures_ that the early Muslims believed in textual corruption and refuted Shamoun's appeal to people like Ibn Abbass to try and show that they didn't believe in textual corruption.
 
The rest of what you said doesn't seem to be relevant or answering my points and are just complete falsehood.
 
Yes I know America is a secular government. But i argued that there are several Christian zionists in america supporting this war. I did not suggest that Christianity permits this, but I did argue that people's interpretations of Christianity are causing this mess just as you have people misinterpreting Islam to cause violence.
 
I don't have to be in America to know that this problem exists. For example, look at the video series on you tube of an ex Muslim Christian trying to prove from the Bible that the Messiah will come back to fight the Muslims and that Christians must support Israel AND THIS IS IN AMERICA. (go to youtube and search for 'prophecy 101')
 
You can't deny that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Protestant Christians support Israel's war.
 
You said that my religion advocates the violence besides choosing your words carefully and saying that misguided Muslims misinterpret Islam to justify violence.
 
You said that my article is a personal attack against Shamoun, yet it isn't, but it only exposes Shamoun's personal attacks on us Muslims and it is clear that this is something that you want to acknowledge.
 
I was hoping our conversation would have been more fruitful. I was hoping that you didn't offer the old repetitive false arguments being put forth by laymen Christians on the internet. I guess I was wrong.
 
Take care Sir
 
 
Bassam

Bassam's Response To James White After He Stayed Silent For a While (Around 5 Weeks Later):

 

Dear Mr. White
 
I wanted to know if you have decided to retract your statements.

It appears that your arguments have confused some Muslims. This means that I would have to publicly address your arguments unless you publicly admit that your arguments were incorrect or not as strong as you make them out to be.
 
If you don't within three days then I would have to publicly address your argument.
 
Please, please don't interpret this email as threatening or of some sort. Its just to inform you of what would happen.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Bassam

James White Replies Back:

Mr. Zawadi:

 

As much as I have wanted to invest time in demonstrating the circularity of your arguments, I have been precluded from doing so by teaching, publishing, ministerial, and personal reasons.  I will get to you eventually, as I find the anachronistic reading of historical documents in the service of religious purposes fascinating, and oh so very common.  But since I do not invest in you final authority in epistemological matters, and as I have found your arguments to be circular, I not only do not retract my statements, but I assure you I am fully capable of defending them as well.  I simply have far more important things to be doing than wrangling with folks in private e-mail.  Further, since the issues at hand are common arguments, discussed thoroughly by others in the past, as you well know, and since all you have done is cut and paste your already publicly posted attempts to get around the problems in your own history, I have no way of understanding why you would say you will "publicly" address it.again?

 

As I have noted before, in your mind "disagreement with modern Islamic orthodoxy as I understand it" is not the same as "misrepresenting Islam."  It is irrational to think or say otherwise.  So your original contact was either disingenuous, or muddled in thinking.  I did not see any substantive response to the real problem of the actual statements of Bukhari in your last missive, but instead I found page after page of cut-and-paste citations from other sources that amounted to nothing more than another anachronistic attempt to get around the plain meaning of the words as originally recorded.  But as I said, as much as I have wanted to invest time in replying to you, my duties have precluded doing so.  I generally do not engage in private correspondence in that fashion, as it does not benefit the wider audience. 

 

In any case, you do as you please, sir. 

 

Bassam's Response:

 

I will post our email discussion and we will let the public decide.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Bassam

 

James White's Response:

 

I see!  Well, good to know the character of the person I'm dealing with before I invest any more time on the matter.  Thanks!

 

END OF EMAIL EXCHANGE

 

 

As everyone could clearly see, James White fails to refute my argument when I appealed to the hadith in Saheeh Bukhari that showed that Zayd when speaking about Surah 33 also said that Abi Khuzayma was the only one had the verse. However, the same hadith clearly shows that Zayd already knew about the verse in question. Taking this into consideration and the fact that it is well known that Abu Bakr ordered that the Qur'an be collected both orally and textually, Zayd was speaking about Abi Khuzayma being the only one having the verses in textual form.

 

Everyone can clearly see how James White is not even bothered nor motivated to properly refer to the links that I have given him and then offer proper rebuttals to them. After all this, he still complains that he hasn't found the Islamic apologist giving him satisfactory answers. Well how does he expect that to happen if he doesn't bother himself to go out and search for all the proper Muslim responses out there?

 

He refuses to read the link about the disgraceful Sam Shamoun or he probably did but doesn't want to admit to himself that he is associated with a low life such as Shamoun.

 

James sarcastically tries to mock my character in his last email to me.

 

He thinks that by reading the Qur'an, reading a few books about Islam and some hadith he has gained credibility for speaking about Islamic issues.

 

We advise James White to stick to speaking on issues related to his own faith. That he starts getting to know who true Islamic authorities are (he actually refers to Shamoun as an authority!) so that Muslims could actually take his arguments more seriously.

 

 

Appendix

 

Dr. James White in one of his online videos http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2594 talks about the performance of brothers Sami Zaatari and Shadid Lewis in the Easter debates.

 

He accuses Sami Zaatari and Shadi of grossly misrepresenting the Christian faith (what a surprise, did we expect him to agree with us?) and he (and this is the funny part) claimed that Sami and Shadid unlike him do not put much effort into trying to understand the other person's faith. He accused them of not appealing to true scholars like how he does when examining the Muslim faith. At the end, he stated that Sami and Shadid make Islam repulsive to him.

 

I believe that the above article shows nothing more than Dr. James White to be inconsistent since one can clearly see in the above email exchange that Dr. James White is not informed about what the greatest Qur'anic and hadith commentators say about controversial verses and hadith that he uses in his arguments.

 

Another example of Dr. James White's inconsistency is the fact that he would openly criticize the behaviour of Nadir Ahmed http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2589, but not do the same in regards to the low life Shamoun who has been on caught audio with his misbehaviour.

 

 

 

 

 

Return to Refuting Aomin.org

 

Return to Homepage

 

click here to view site

HomeWhat's new?IslamChristianityRefutations LanguagesMultimediaE BooksLinksContact Me