In my May
3, 2013 post, I mentioned I had ordered the new book by James R.
White, that Ken Temple had brought to my attention via a thread posted at Beggars
All (link).
I received the book a couple of days ago, and finished reading it yesterday. I
was debating with myself over whether or not to blog on the book, but a couple
of emails, and a phone conversation with a good friend, convinced me that I should
do so, so here goes...
I
shall begin with a few introductory items, before I get into the book itself.
First (at the risk of self-promotion), I think I am reasonably qualified to
offer a review of this book. I have been a student of the Qur'an and Islam for
over a two decades now. I have obtained well over 700 books on the Qur'an and
Islam to facilitate my studies (FYI: of the books and essays listed in the WECNTKATQ
bibliography, I possess more that 85% of them), and I have interacted with
numerous Muslims from various backgrounds/sects (e.g. Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi and
Ismaili) via conferences, debates, lectures and developed friendships (one of
which was an associate professor of Middle East Studies at Portland State
Univ.). So, although I do not have any formal degrees in this area of study, I
think I stand on safe ground when I say that I have acquired a knowledge of the
Qur'an and Islam that exceeds most Christians.
Second,
although some of the endorsements included within the book suggest that Mr.
White has provided something unique and new for it's/his targeted audience,
this simply is not the case; I was not able find anything of substance within
its pages that has not been covered before. For example, Dr. Mateen Elass's, Understanding
the Koran - A Quick Guide to the Muslim Holy Book (LINK),
has so much in common with Mr. White's book, that I am more than a bit puzzled
as to why Dr. Elass's book is not mentioned by him. (Dr. Elass is an ordained
Presbyterian minister with an educational and personal background that
qualifies him as few others to write on the subject—e.g. his father was a
life-long Muslim, he lived for 1o years in Saudi Arabia, his doctorate is in New
Testament Studies from a prestigious university, and he remains very active in
Christian-Muslim dialogue.)
And
third, the book's title suggests that "Every Christian" needs this
book in order to "Know About the Qur'an"—a lofty premise for sure—but,
those not familiar with Mr. White need to be aware that he personally places
significant limits on those who are Christian in his mind; Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Christians need not open their wallets, for in Mr. White's paradigm,
they are not Christian!!! (There are many, many more who claim to be Christian
who are excluded by Mr. White, but if one limits his exclusions to just
Catholic and Orthodox Christians, he has already eliminated well over 1 billion
possible readers!)
Now,
onto the review of the book and it's content. The book is a paperback, which is
5.5 x 8.5 inches; it has 311 pages, with 3/4 inch margins on each side; it has
what appears to be a 12 pt. and 1 1/2 space typesetting for the main body of
the text (for those who are bibliophiles like myself, they will immediately
discern that the book's actual content is significantly reduced by the above
print layout). There are 7 endorsements, and the main body of the text begins
with the "Introduction" on page 9. (Note: chapter endnotes instead of
footnotes are used.)
The
"Introduction" opens with the following questions:
Why
would a believing Christian write a book about the Qur'an? If he does, why
should believing Christians read it? Shouldn't we go to the Muslims to learn
about their own sacred book? (Page 9)
On
the following page, Mr. White writes:
There is no substitute for original sources, to be sure. But haven't I now argued against reading this book by a Christian about the Muslim holy book?
An
excellent point, followed by an excellent question. Let's see how Mr. White
justifies the publishing of a book that "Every Christian" needs in
order to "Know About the Qur'an". (Page 10)
The
reality is that there are areas—one being Islam in general and the Qur'an in
particular—in which the literature is so vast, and the terminology gap so
large, that the resultant task is, or least seems, too daunting for even the
most committed believer. While some of these works are intended for
non-Muslims, most Christians who become desirous of learning of learning about
Islamic beliefs and of reading the Qur'an find it necessary to obtain the help
of fellow believers who already have been led to the deeper study of the field.
This is especially true if one wishes to hear "the other side" of the
story about the Qur'an, the one normally not included in Islamic sources, about
the text's compilation, the differences among the early Islamic community, and
so on. (Page 10)
The
above 'apologia' provided for the publication of a book like WECNTKATQ
reveals to the careful reader some very interesting details. First, one will
notice that the priority placed on the "original sources" (by
"original sources" I think Mr. White means works by authors who are
faithful Muslims, including the Qur'an itself), has already shifted to,
"'the other side' of the story about the Qur'an" (wow, that did not
take long!). This 'shift' is evident in the bibliography of the book, in that
less than 30 works are contained therein which could be construed as
"original sources" (the bibliography seems to imply that "the
literature" is not quite as "vast" as suggested).
Second,
one should ask Mr. White if he would recommend the same approach to the Bible
for the non-Christian who is seeking an objective understanding of it. A direct
parallel case would be that of a faithful Jew who is seeking accurate knowledge
of the New Testament, "about the text's compilation, the differences among
the early [Christian] community, and so on." Keeping in mind that the
literature concerning the New Testament and Christianity is "vast"
and "that the resultant task is,
or least seems, too daunting for even the most committed believer", would
Mr. White recommend to such a Jew that he/she should turn to a professional
Jewish apologist like Rabbi Singer (LINK),
who's ministry focuses on defending the Jewish faith against Christian
apologetics/apologists (via books, lectures, debates, CDs, DVDs, etc.), rather
than a dedicated Christian apologist/believer??? If Mr. White answers YES to
the above question, then he is at least being consistent; however, if is answer
is a NO, then we have before us a glaring double-standard.
Mr.
White then offers the following qualifications:
This
book's title is purposeful: I seek to focus on what Christians [i.e.
conservative, Evangelical Christians] need to understand about the
Qur'an's teachings particularly as it impacts our interactions with Muslims
[i.e. conservative, fundamentalist, Sunni Muslims].
I
submit that above is THE driving force behind the book; the book is not about
giving it's reader "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge" (this is clearly stated by Mr. White himself: "It is not my intention to write an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge", p. 11);
nor is it about a balanced, objective look into the Qur'an: the book is
polemical effort for a conservative, Evangelical Christian audience, written by
a professional apologist, with it's primary goal being to undermine any claims
about the Qur'an being an inspired text. As such, it takes it's place among
many other such works (I own and have read over 2 dozen such contributions);
being IMO, neither the worst, nor the best of the genre.
[Please
note: It is not my intent to argue that such works have NO place within the
conservative, Evangelical Christian community—the shear numbers of such works,
and related websites, strongly suggests otherwise—rather, my intent is to
identify the kind of work the reader has before them.]
In
subsequent posts (the Lord willing), I hope to delve into the 'meat' of the
book, with reflections that I believe will establish my above assertions beyond
any reasonable doubt.
Grace
and peace,
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteJust saw this yesterday, May 14.
You wrote:
I submit that above is THE driving force behind the book; the book is not about giving it's reader "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge";
He NEVER claimed that he is trying to give "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge" - the way you worded that, you seem to be trying to make it sound as if that was his purpose; in fact that phrase in your quotes is his wording but you took it out of context - in his original sentence, on page 11 - gives the exact opposite meaning of what you gave it -
"It is not my intention to write an exhaustive compendium of Qur'an knowledge. Almost no one could, and I certainly could not, even if I wished to do so. My aims are far most focused and modest." (page 11, my emphasis)
Why did you write that, when Dr. White clearly communicated upfront and honest about his purposes?
". . . we should want to introduce them [Muslims] to our Lord." (page 16)
he state three purposes:
1. To honor Jesus . . .
2. To bless the people of God . . .
3. To . . . bring the glorious message of salvation in Jesus Christ to the precious Muslim people . . . (p. 11)
You seem to be trying to "poison the well" from the start. Your introductory review was very negative and distorted, IMO.
nor is it about a balanced, objective look into the Qur'an:
With the given goals of apologetics and evangelism stated honestly upfront, he never claims to be doing what your opinion of a "balanced, objective look into the Qur'an", etc. - but, I have almost finished it, and in my opinion, he was very fair and objective in his dealings with the Qur'an from a Christian perspective - since the Bible and Christianity came about 600 years before the Qur'an, there are certain things that actually demonstrate that the Qur'an is not a divinely inspired book. (The denial of the historical event of the crucifixion and death of Jesus; the misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity and the sonship of Christ - those 2 being the probably the biggest proofs that the Qur'an is not inspired by the one true creator God.
the book is polemical effort for a conservative, Evangelical Christian audience, written by a professional apologist, with it's primary goal being to undermine any claims about the Qur'an being an inspired text. As such, it takes it's place among many other such works (I own and have read over 2 dozen such contributions); being IMO, neither the worst, nor the best of the genre.
Eventually, one has to come to that conclusion, as a Christian, and be a Christian. Denial of the crucifixion and denial that God the Son became flesh/human and the spiritual relationship of the Father and the Son are clear teachings of all "anti-Christs" in all history, as explained in 1 John 2:18-29 and 4:1-3; and 2 John 7-9.
As for your other comment about going to Rabbi Tovia Singer, etc. - this seems like another attempt to poison the well again, before you even deal with the actual things Dr. White has written.
If Dr. White was debating Jewish apologists, (as Michael Brown does), I am sure he would devote a lot of time to listening to their arguments and their sources, as he has demonstrated in his dealings with Mormons, Roman Catholics, Atheists, and Muslims.
I hope your other posts are better and more objective than this one. It honestly seems like you started off so negative that you wanted to poison the well from the start.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete" . . . being IMO, neither the worst, nor the best of the genre."
What do you think is the best of that genre?
This is a good review of Dr. White's book:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hopeingod.org/news-events/bethlehem-blogs/global-outreach-blog/book-review-what-every-christian-needs-know-about-q
learn from them.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for taking the time to respond; in your first post you wrote:
==Hi David,
Just saw this yesterday, May 14.
You wrote:
I submit that above is THE driving force behind the book; the book is not about giving it's reader "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge";
He NEVER claimed that he is trying to give "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge" - the way you worded that, you seem to be trying to make it sound as if that was his purpose; in fact that phrase in your quotes is his wording but you took it out of context - in his original sentence, on page 11 - gives the exact opposite meaning of what you gave it -
"It is not my intention to write an exhaustive compendium of Qur'an knowledge. Almost no one could, and I certainly could not, even if I wished to do so. My aims are far most focused and modest." (page 11, my emphasis)==
Me: Ken, with all due respect, you have totally misread what I ACTUALLY WROTE, MUCH OF WHICH WERE MR. WHITE'S OWN WORDS. (FYI: I personally would prefer to refer to him as James, but in a DL program he stated that I, "did not have the right" to do so.)
Here is what I published in the opening post:
>>"This book's title is purposeful: I seek to focus on what Christians" [i.e. conservative, Evangelical Christians] "need to understand about the Qur'an's teachings particularly as it impacts our interactions with Muslims" [i.e. conservative, fundamentalist, Sunni Muslims].>>
Notice that ALL the words in quotation marks are Mr. White's (I used red text in the original post). I then immediately state:
>>I submit that above is THE driving force behind the book;>>
Followed by what the book IS NOT:
>>the book is not about giving it's reader "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge"; nor is it about a balanced, objective look into the Qur'an:>>
I first quote Mr. White's own words as to what the book IS NOT, and then added an observation of my own. So, I hope you can now discern that I did not postulate at all that Mr. White had made the claim that the book was "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge"—I DID JUST THE OPPOSITE—I quoted Mr. White's own words as to what the book WAS NOT ABOUT.
==Why did you write that, when Dr. White clearly communicated upfront and honest about his purposes?==
Me: I wrote what I wrote because that is what Mr. White wrote in his book.
==You seem to be trying to "poison the well" from the start. Your introductory review was very negative and distorted, IMO.==
Me: I sincerely do not see how quoting Mr. White's own words is to "'poison the well' from the start." Though I would agree with you that the review is "negative" (it is a critical review), I do not believe that I have "distorted" anything.
==nor is it about a balanced, objective look into the Qur'an:
With the given goals of apologetics and evangelism stated honestly upfront, he never claims to be doing what your opinion of a "balanced, objective look into the Qur'an", etc. - but, I have almost finished it, and in my opinion, he was very fair and objective in his dealings with the Qur'an from a Christian perspective - since the Bible and Christianity came about 600 years before the Qur'an, there are certain things that actually demonstrate that the Qur'an is not a divinely inspired book.==
Me: In the above you have duplicated exactly what I described the book to be, minus the "very fair and objective", which I submit is not possible in apologetic/polemical work—it is impossible for one to be "very fair and objective" if one begins with the premise that the CANNOT be "a divinely inspired book."
CONT'D
CONT'D
ReplyDeleteKen:==(The denial of the historical event of the crucifixion and death of Jesus; the misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity and the sonship of Christ - those 2 being the probably the biggest proofs that the Qur'an is not inspired by the one true creator God.==
Me: You and I have been over these two issues before; I have cited numerous other Christian apologists who disagree Mr. White on both issues (and, as you know, he writes nothing about those fellow Christian apologists).
==the book is polemical effort for a conservative, Evangelical Christian audience, written by a professional apologist, with it's primary goal being to undermine any claims about the Qur'an being an inspired text. As such, it takes it's place among many other such works (I own and have read over 2 dozen such contributions); being IMO, neither the worst, nor the best of the genre.
Eventually, one has to come to that conclusion, as a Christian, and be a Christian. Denial of the crucifixion and denial that God the Son became flesh/human and the spiritual relationship of the Father and the Son are clear teachings of all "anti-Christs" in all history, as explained in 1 John 2:18-29 and 4:1-3; and 2 John 7-9.==
Me: Once again, we have touched on these issues before, and some Christians take another view of the matter.
==As for your other comment about going to Rabbi Tovia Singer, etc. - this seems like another attempt to poison the well again, before you even deal with the actual things Dr. White has written.==
Me: I totally disagree Ken; I was merely using a parallel case to help identify the type of book we are talking about.
==If Dr. White was debating Jewish apologists, (as Michael Brown does), I am sure he would devote a lot of time to listening to their arguments and their sources, as he has demonstrated in his dealings with Mormons, Roman Catholics, Atheists, and Muslims.==
Me: Do not see how this is relevant; once again, I ask the question: if a Jew is interested in the New Testament and Christianity, would you send him to a professional, Jewish apologist to gain that information?
==I hope your other posts are better and more objective than this one. It honestly seems like you started off so negative that you wanted to poison the well from the start.==
Me: I started off "negative" because I sincerely believe that the genre of book needs to be clearly identified from the beginning.
Grace and peace,
David
Ken:== What do you think is the best of that genre?==
ReplyDeleteMe: First, I am not a 'fan' of the apologetic/polemical genre to begin with; however, with that said, for those who like this genre, I would recommend Anees Zaka's two books: Muslims and Christians at the Table and The Noble Qur'an's Teachings In Light of the Holy Bible.
If one moves outside the apologetic/polemical genre, but remains within the Christian worldview, I would recommend Dr. Kenneth Cragg's (doctorate in Islamic Studies, Oxford Univ.) works: The Event of the Qur'an, Jesus and the Muslim, Muhammad and the Christian.
Grace and peace,
David
Me: I sincerely do not see how quoting Mr. White's own words is to "'poison the well' from the start." Though I would agree with you that the review is "negative" (it is a critical review), I do not believe that I have "distorted" anything.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response -
But you left out the full quote of his up front admission, that it is NOT an exhaustive treatment. The way you framed it, it looks like you don't acknowledge that he even says, what it is NOT.
As for apologetics, you don't believe in the commands and exhortations of 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3, etc.?
"always be ready to give a defense (apologia, where we get the concept of apologetics from) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that lies within you . . . "
Jude 3 - "content earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints"
What is wrong with defending Christian doctrine?
Hello again Ken,
ReplyDeleteYesterday afternoon, you responded with:
==Thanks for your response -
But you left out the full quote of his up front admission, that it is NOT an exhaustive treatment. The way you framed it, it looks like you don't acknowledge that he even says, what it is NOT.
Me: But I did quote THE most direct portion of, "his upfront admission", namely that the book is not about giving it's reader, "an exhaustive compendium of Qur'anic knowledge". Once again, those are his own words. To say that, "it looks like you don't acknowledge that he even says, what it is NOT", makes no sense to me at all—it is very confusing.
== As for apologetics, you don't believe in the commands and exhortations of 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3, etc.?==
Me: Yes, but I would argue that the overarching nature of Biblical apologetics is the presentation of the Gospel itself, not a negative/polemical treatment on the competing philosophical and/or religious systems of the day. Paul and the other apostles sure seemed to identify common ground with their Gentile audiences, and used that as a platform to present the Gospel.
== What is wrong with defending Christian doctrine?==
Me: Nothing, and if a non-Christian is seeking knowledge about Christian doctrine, I would urge him/her to go to a Christian to gain that knowledge, and not an apologist of his/her own worldview. (Sincerely hope that makes sense to you Ken.)
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to know where you are coming from, in what you see as truth and falsehood, since you
-are open to Bahai'ism as true (still, right ?)
-which means that you think Islam was a possible middle step between Christianity and Bahai'ism. That seems to be why you are unwilling to call the Qur'an and Islam necessarily false, if Christianity (The NT revelation) is true and the final revelation to man.
That whole thinking on your part is really strange to me - it means you really don't believe in the NT Scriptures as true truth (what Francis Schaeffer used to say), which necessarily means that what contradicts it is false. As Ravi Zacharias would say also, if something A is true, that necessarily means non-A is false.
It is clear that the Qur'an got the Trinity and Sonship of Christ wrong. (Qur’an 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-93)
It is clear that the Qur'an denied the crucifixion of Jesus. Surah 4:157 [those attempts by Todd Lawson (that you and I already spent a lot of time on in earlier posts) and other modern western scholars seem really strained to me, reading Christian theology of John 11:25, back into the Qur’an and violating the author’s intended meaning. It seems to me that they are embarrassed by the obvious mistake and are trying to save the Qur’an from that embarrassment.]
I concede that the phrase “but, it was made to appear so” و لکن شبه لهم – is a little ambiguous, but the other emphatic phrases are not ambiguous, they are clear – “they did not crucify Him, nor kill him”; and then at the end, “for sure they did not kill him”. We have this Arabic word is Farsi – “for sure” – Yaqinan - یفینا We also have the word “to be like” Shabihe شبه and its various forms in Farsi, and the word for “kill”/”fight to the death” (Qatl) in Farsi. I recognize “to them” (lahem) as similar to the Hebrew cognate.
In Evangelism, Apologetics, Discipleship, and church planting - Logic and reason compel us to be honest about a system that is false, just as Paul confronted the idol worshipers / false Greek philosophies in Athens (Acts 17), the Judaizers in Galatians (book of Galatians), and the pro to-Gnostics in Colossea, the false teachers in Ephesus ( 1 & 2 Timothy); and John confronted the Docetists in 1 and 2 John, etc.
So, Dr. White did an excellent job, from a Christian viewpoint, and dealt fairly with the main issues in the Qur'an and the Hadith, of exposing the main differences in the essential doctrines (The Trinity, the cross, salvation, reliability of Scriptures) between the Qur'an and the Bible.
“but, it was made to appear so to them”
ReplyDeleteI left out "to them" earlier.
We also have "and" و (wa or va) and "But/however" لکن (laken) in Farsi - "and however"
ReplyDeleteHi Ken,
ReplyDeleteBefore I get into your morning comments, I would like to bring to your attention that I have added further clarification to the section that you had difficulty with; hopefully, this will assist future readers who may misunderstand the passage as you did, and prevent it from happening again.
Now, onto your new comments; you wrote:
==That whole thinking on your part is really strange to me - it means you really don't believe in the NT Scriptures as true truth (what Francis Schaeffer used to say), which necessarily means that what contradicts it is false. As Ravi Zacharias would say also, if something A is true, that necessarily means non-A is false.==
Me: First, since I believe that both the OT and NT were fully inspired, and that we have an accurate transmission of the original autographa, I adamantly deny your charge. Second, there is a massive difference between an apparent contradiction, and a real contradiction. I have over a dozen books in my library (constituting thousands of pages) that are devoted to showing the difference between apparent contradictions, and a real contradictions. [For instance, in the OT we are told that a number of Israelites (including prophets) "saw the God of Israel" (and this on more than one occasion); but, in the NT we are told that "no one has seen God at anytime".]
== It is clear that the Qur'an got the Trinity and Sonship of Christ wrong. (Qur’an 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-93)==
Me: Maybe "clear" to you, but not so clear to other Christians who have written on the subject. (I have already provided such documentation, and shall provide even more in my second installment, including a book published by the same publisher as Mr. White's book!)
== It is clear that the Qur'an denied the crucifixion of Jesus. Surah 4:157 [those attempts by Todd Lawson (that you and I already spent a lot of time on in earlier posts) and other modern western scholars seem really strained to me...==
Me: You have seemed to forgotten the links I provided to Christian missionary sites in Muslim lands who agree with Lawson. (Once again, will provide more on this in my second installment.)
== So, Dr. White did an excellent job, from a Christian viewpoint, and dealt fairly with the main issues in the Qur'an and the Hadith, of exposing the main differences in the essential doctrines (The Trinity, the cross, salvation, reliability of Scriptures) between the Qur'an and the Bible.==
Me: I thought "Dr." White's treatment on the reliability of Scriptures was solid; however, not so much with most of the other issues. Hopefully, when I get to feeling a bit better (have a horrible cold, with a fever right now), I will get to working on the second installment (the Lord willing), which will address more of my concerns.
Grace and peace,
David
the clarification you added was helpful - thanks - apparently, you could see and understand why the way you worded it lead to the way I perceived you were coming across. the total negative tone you have toward James White just oozes off your writings. ( IMO)
ReplyDeleteyes, I know that there are modern missionaries who are playing games with the text (as Dr. Lawson does) - that is wrong - a lot of modern missionaries are doing that, in order to avoid speaking directly against the Qur'an. it does not seem honest to me.
I remember Joseph Cumming's paper - and I appreciated being able to read and download that, as he was a missionary and I knew of him and he is one of the main driver's behind the "Yale- Evangelical Response to the Common Word".
I also remember the videos from Evidence of God's Unchanging Word and Faouzi Arzouni, and I think he does a great job with the issue that the Qur'an never says the text was corrupted, and on the issue of atonement and sacrifice in Islam, but I respectfully disagree with the way he handled Surah 4:157 - it is not respectful to the Muslims to re-interpret their own texts against the author's intended meaning.
are there other examples of that?
I agree with you that there is a difference between contradiction and apparent contradiction, and your example of "they saw God" and "no one has at any time seen God" is a good one; but it just doesn't not apply to the issue of Surah 4:157, in all honesty. It just "does not pass the smell test." so to speak.
Me: I thought "Dr." White's treatment on the reliability of Scriptures was solid;
ReplyDeleteI am grateful that you see that.
Sorry about your cold, and fever, etc. - yuk!
I hope you get some good rest and feel better soon and write some more on James White's book - I want to argue with you more (smile).
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that my very nasty cold is finally coming to an end (8 days now !!!). I had enough energy earlier today to work on, and publish the second installment of my review:
LINK
I think (and hope) that you will find my selections from al-Kindi and Newman to be of interest...
Grace and peace,
David