Rambo III – Liberating Butler

Mr. Fred Butler, to whom I replied a day ago, has hit back with another response.

He starts off his “response” by telling a lie. Mr. Butler refers to me as a (emphasis added) “Self-proclaimed “expert” on NT textual criticism, early Christian history…” Now, where and when precisely did I claim to be a “self-proclaimed expert” on “NT textual criticism, early Christian history…”, or any other field for that matter? When did I make such type of a self-proclamation? NO WHERE. In desperation, Mr. Butler could no nothing more than utter a lie. To set the record straight, I am not an “expert” on any field of study and I never made any highflying claims pertaining to myself in this regard. I only regard myself as a student, who attempts to read as many books and articles as possible to understand the different perspectives.

WHAT YASIR QADHI’S BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS ON THE INITIAL HESITATION OF IBN MASUD

WHAT YASIR QADHI’S BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS ON THE INITIAL HESITATION OF IBN MASUD

Shabir Ally

May 21, 2006

Dr. James White in his opening presentation during his recent debate with me said that Ibn Masud had refused to hand over his copy of the Quran as demanded by the caliph Uthman, and that on this account he was beaten, as a result of which he died. During the Q & A I remarked that James was wrong about this. I explained that according to the traditional reports Ibn Masud had overcome his initial hesitation after some reflection. Contradicting me, James read the following citation:

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN INCONSISTENT PERSON AND AN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENT

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN

AN INCONSISTENT PERSON AND

AN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENT

Shabir Ally

May 24, 2006

During our debate, and ever since, James White has repeated several times a motto which on its own seems quite logical but which was nevertheless used in our debate in a sense that is quite flawed. He said, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.” This statement could be interpreted as meaning: “An inconsistent argument fails to be convincing.” In this sense the statement is logical. But this is not the sense in which James used it in the context of our debate.

THE AFTERMATH OF DEBATE

THE AFTERMATH OF DEBATE

Shabir Ally

May 24, 2006

Recently James White has expressed some concern as to whether or not I am still in “debate mode.” I can appreciate the concern. I myself would much prefer to leave the debate alone for others to analyze, and move on to other matters which I have had to leave aside for the moment while I deal with questions arising out of this debate. Actually, I had the impression that it was James who intended to add to the debate. Soon after the debate he had posted a blog giving his views on it. Following that, he discussed the matter more extensively on Dividing Line a couple of days after the debate. I indicated to him that I had listened to that broadcast. Then, in the next edition of Dividing Line he continued his discussion of the contents of our debate. In that episode he greeted me directly in case I was listening.

A REASSERTION THAT MATTHEW 24:42 IMPROVES THE IMAGE OF JESUS OVER THAT OF MARK 13:35

A REASSERTION THAT MATTHEW 24:42 IMPROVES THE IMAGE OF JESUS OVER THAT OF MARK 13:35

A COMMENTARY ON A POINT DISCUSSED DURING THE BIOLA DEBATE

Shabir Ally

Revised¹

May 21, 2006

In my recent debate with Dr. James White at Biola University James reminded me of a point I had made elsewhere. I had made much of a difference I noticed between a verse in Mark and a parallel verse in Matthew. James explained, however, that if I had looked at a Greek parallel of the Gospels I would have noticed that the same word is used in both. I understood him to be saying that the impression I had received from the Bible translation I relied on for that point is not sustained by the underlying Greek text. Due to my ignorance of the Greek language, I conceded the point, deferring to James’ unquestionable knowledge of Greek. Subsequent to the debate, however, I checked the relevant verses in the New American Standard Bible, the very Bible which James gave me, which he recommended that I use, and for the translation of which he has served as a consultant. I found that in the NASB the verses allow for the original point. After reviewing some of my scholarly sources, I feel that I should restate and reclaim the original point.

Tackling the Butler and White team

Some time ago I had some exchanges with a few friends of Mr. James White, chief among them Mr. Fred Butler, and a few others, which are to be found here. Later, Mr Fred sought the help of Mr James White and posted a short reply to me.

Here I will attempt to deal with both Fred Butler and Mr. James White.

Before, I begin, I don’t have a very good opinion of Fred Butler and you can see the reason for it by going to the comments section of his debate review. Nonetheless, I will ignore those exchanges for now and just focus on Butler’s latest comments and offer a polite reply. On a positive note, I like the picture of mine Butler added to his blog (remember, me Rambo).

Nazam Iqbal’s review of Shabir Ally and James White debate entitled: “Is the New Testament as it is today the inspired word of God?”

Nazam Iqbal

After listening to the Debate between Dr James White and Shabir Ally, I was disappointed that Dr White could not give one reason as to why anyone should take the New Testament in the first place to be the inspired word of God especially when it does not make such a claim (the exception being the book of Revelation). Dr White, despite being given the platform to do so, came instead with an agenda to give his rebuttals to debates which Ally had done in the past with other Christians even though the topic of the debate was ‘Is the New Testament as it is today the Word of God?’

Dr White thought he could shift the burden of proof upon Ally by making him prove why we should believe in the prophethood of prophet Muhammed or the Quran to be the Word of God but obviously this was not the nights topic even though Ally did briefly address it.

Rambo Part II – the second strike: A Reply to Patrick Chan’s “Rambo, drawing first blood”

Some time ago I posted my reply to Patrick which is to be found here.

Patrick recently replied to this response of mine in a blog entry entitled: “Rambo, drawing first blood”

Besides Patrick, Mr. Steven Hays has also offered a brief reply to my thoughts. Another reply was offered by Chris in the comments section of Patrick’s earlier paper. Chris’ reply was quite complimentary and he did not really disagree with much of what I had to say and, in fact, largely agreed with me. Let me quote a part of Chris’ reaction:

Response to Steve Hays reaction

Howdy everyone!

In response to my response, a Christian apologist, Steve Hays, has also offerred a short reply which is to be found here and here. As you will notice, right from the outset Mr. Hays maintains a patronizing and arrogant tone towards me throughout his brief reply. Needless to say, such an attitude is hardly conducive for a civil and sober discussion/dialogue. Nonetheless, I will try to reply in a civil manner, though I make no promises.

As usual, my original statements will follow “>” whereas Mr. Hays’ reply will be in italics.

Dissecting James White’s mother of all arguments

After listening to his Dividing Line address, I think there is no doubt that James White is particularly fond and proud of a specific argument he raised during his debate with Shabir Ally. Why, not even the great Shabir Ally was able to deal with it (allegedly, read below), so proclaims James White. It’s one of those arguments which is supposed to make a Muslim “think” real hard and aims to jolt Muslims right down to the core.

But after hearing James White’s mother of all arguments, I found myself saying “huh?” It really didn’t impress me at all and I will try to shortly explain why. First, let me present what James White said in his Dividing Line talk:1

Addressing some of Tony Costa’s erroneous comments

Hello folks

James White on the Dividing line 9/05/06 gave a talk in which he gave his view of his debate with Shabir Ally. The Christian apologist Tony Costa – who has also debated Shabir Ally in the past – called in and offered some of his comments on the debate as well. I am concerned with a particular statement Costa made about Shabir Ally’s debate with the notorious Christian polemicist Robert Morey. Costa tried to give the impression as if Shabir Ally did poorly and refused to have further debates with Robert Morey. This is what Costa said:

Rambo strikes back – a reply to Patrick Chan

In response to my comments in his blog, Mr. Patrick Chan later decided to write a detailed and a very polite response to my questions in a blog entry entitled: A little rumba with Rambo. As you will see, Patrick mostly raised irrelevant issues, but I like him due to his decent and friendly behaviour, which is difficult to find in Christian apologists these days. So, later I also decided to write a friendly reply to Patrick as well. Below is my response: