Accusations and Truth Regarding Nazam44

I want to take just a few moments to address

Nazzam44. This is a gentleman who posts a lot of Islamic material on YouTube, and today while I was searching for some

URLs to send to someone in London to help arrange a debate between myself and Shabbir Ali there in London, I found that the posting, and I would assume

Shabbir gives these videos to Nazzam44 to post, I found that the posting of our

Biola debate now has an annotation on it. And the annotation says,

James White lied in this debate about Ibn Masud, please check on the right info bar.

And when you go over to the right, they send you to an answering missionaries website.

Now this again goes back to what took place during the debate, and that was at one point

I was asked what my reference was on Ibn Masud. And as I have said, I had a screen full of HTML code, and I read the wrong reference.

I brought this up shortly after the debate on my own program, my own blog, and I addressed the issue at that time.

I have posted a video wherein I have documented that there are differences amongst the early

Muslim sources as to how Ibn Masud died, and I make the case that I would have much greater respect for Ibn Masud if he stood his ground, if he did not compromise on his principles.

But interestingly enough, the Psalm 44, and now as I look through YouTube, a bunch of other

Muslims are now picking up on this, do not allow this to be a difference of opinion, they do not allow me to be a human being, even though in the same debate with Shabir Ali, Shabir Ali said things that I've seen

Muslims taking him on for saying the Gospel of Thomas is earlier than the Gospel of Mark. I've seen

Muslims saying that's an absurd assertion. What we're seeing here is,

I think, again, the gross double standards that mark most

Muslim apologists, and it's a shame to see. I knew it would happen eventually, but it's a shame to see.

I don't see Muslims responding to my arguments on Islam. I don't see them defending

Yusuf Estes when I demonstrate that he has no idea what he's talking about about church history. I don't see them defending the textual critical information that I've been providing them because I don't think they can.

And so, when one side can't respond to the arguments, what they try to do is to keep their side from listening to the arguments.

Interestingly enough, the exact opposite of what Gary Miller has told people in most of the things I've heard him saying about how you need to check anything out that you hear and to see if it's true or false.

The modern Muslim apologist says, no, no, no, he's a liar. Now, there is no question about the fact that there is a difference of opinion concerning Ibn Masud.

There is no question of the fact that there are early sources that indicate that what I said was true. So why does

Nassam 44 choose to use the term liar? Why not say, we disagree with the assertion he made here?

That kind of verbiage, that kind of rhetoric, is not the rhetoric that is used by honest individuals.

You see, I could have responded to some of the things that Shabir Ali said in our debate by accusing him of all sorts of things.

I think the statement he made about the Gospel of Thomas based upon a leftist, liberal, female

Roman Catholic scholar at Boston College is absurd. I think it's ridiculous. I think it could be even deceptive.

But I think it's far better to just demonstrate that the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century

Gnostic production, has nothing to do with Thomas, it's long after Mark, and leave all that kind of acerbic emotionalism to the side, because if you really believe in the truth, you don't have to do those things.

If you have the truth, you don't have to do those things. So why is Nitzam 44 using this kind of language?

Why is he accusing me of lying when he knows that there is a difference of opinion on this particular subject?

It's very disappointing, and I think it says a lot concerning the motivations.

My motivation is to speak the truth. I am not the issue. I am not a perfect individual.

I can misread a screen of HTML. If that's what you want to prove, great, but that doesn't make me a liar.

And if you can't tell the difference between being able to make a mistake and being a liar, then

I could call Shabir Ali a liar for what he said. But what would that accomplish? And I would not do that.

That's not something that is necessary to be done. And so I call upon Nitzam 44 to adopt a higher standard of truthfulness.

Remove that annotation. Feel free to say we disagree on the end of Ibn Masud.

That's fine. Direct people to anything you want. Direct them to my video on the subject as well and see if they can decide for themselves.

But I simply call upon Muslims to use a higher standard. Don't engage in this kind of name calling.

Think of all the Muslims that I've demonstrated gross errors in their argumentation. Did I have to use that kind of language that Nitzam 44 uses to make my point?

I didn't have to. You can leave that to people who love the truth. The only people who are impressed by that kind of language, by that kind of activity, are people who don't love the truth in the first place.

So I call Nitzam 44 to a higher standard. Let's keep the dialogue going, but let's keep the dialogue going on a civil basis.

If we can't do that, well, the side that can't says much about its own view of truth.