Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Francis Turretin, an ally of James White sought to respond to this post, however I took it upon myself to respond to his article the very same day. What occurred after, was his complete unwillingness and abandonment to properly respond to my arguments, by dismissing them as being not cogent, because I , allegedly, did not provide any real arguments for my positions. The problem for Mr. Turretin is this, my initial article quoted all the references and citations I needed to present my cases, which he denied, but then quoted:

Regarding the author’s conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of “until newer revelation was sent.” That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified.  In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.

Yet, I clearly demonstrated that in his very article, where he quoted me, the evidence was provided for my case:

So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).

What is worse, is when he made this comment:

He has not behaved himself like a gentleman in his posts. I would tolerate all that if he could simply provide us with some cogent argument for his position. I trust that the post above and the comments already in this thread demonstrate that no such cogent argument has been presented yet. But yes – there is no point to responding simply to his polemics as such.

Although, in several places, he praised my arguments and accepted them as being valid, so much so, he even said we agreed. This now leaves me bewildered. On one end he’s saying my arguments are nonsensical, while on the other hand, he’s quick to say we agreed wholeheartedly:

Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.

So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say “God’s word” rather than “God’s words.”

He even injects some praise, calling my argument and my positions, “reasonable”. I accept that they were, I knew what I wrote, therefore on what grounds exactly, does he then change his mind, a few hours later in the privacy of the comments on his blog? Well, I posted the link, just the link to my article responding to him in his comments and this is what he had to say [bold emphasis is my own, words are his however]:

Thanks for taking the time to read my refutation of your post, and for replying. I’m not sure it’s worth my time to reply again, as it seems obvious to me that you didn’t understand my post.

But I will provide a few comments. You appeal to a Jewish legend regarding the Torah, which claims that all the copies of the Torah were destroyed by Ahaz, except one that was hid by God, and which was subsequently discovered, after a period of several decades.

You seem to think that this is demonstration of the fact that God allowed His word not to be preserved. Yet, obviously, even in the legend the word is preserved (moreover this word that is being preserved in the legend is the same Pentateuch we have now).

In your concluding remarks you make reference to the fictional Scroll of Antiochus (the scroll really exists, but the work is fictional). How that scroll (you reference “scrolls” but one assumes that is a typo) is supposed to substantiate your claims is a mystery.

Virtually the entire rest of your response is a series of grousings that we haven’t accepted your assertion that “Torah” doesn’t refer to the Old Testament, and “Injil” doesn’t refer to the New Testament. Perhaps if you offered some cogent arguments on that point, we would have something to discuss – but simply asserting it and accusing people who don’t agree with you of dishonesty will earn you only a lack of interest in your call.

May peace be upon all those who serve the Prince of Peace,

TurretinFan

To which my reply was:

I’m pretty sure I understood your post, all your points pivoted on the belief that the Injeel = New Testament and Torah = Old Testament, all you tried to do, was say I’m wrong because there is a clear connection between the two, while not presenting a single shred of evidence for that. What’s worse is that I clearly pointed out the contradiction in your narrative, which you failed to address even in this comment.

Jewish legend? No sir, I quoted a reliable Jewish historical source, that is on par with Patristic writings, a compendium of information which has come to us through some of the greatest Judaic scholars, I’m insulted that you’d demean Judaic literary sources in such a whimsical light.

I did not say this was a demonstration of God not protecting His word, rather I said it was a demonstration from among your own peoples where your scripture (which I do not consider to be from God), disappeared totally. A response to your argument, which you asserted was implausible.

The work, according to most Judaic sources was on par with the Torah in terms of authority, regarded as something to be revered and respected, see Mattis Kantor – The Spark of All Truths.

I presented my case on the disconnect between the Torah and Injil versus the Testaments very explicitly, I can’t see why your only argument against my arguments is to simply deny them. I do hold you to be dishonest, I presented cases underwhich you ignored and further so, where you twisted my words, asserting that I agreed the Testaments = Injil/ Torah. Perhaps integrity will earn you some elucidation, until such a time, properly read my works before trying to respond to them,

As Salaamu ‘ala Man Ittaba al Huda,
Ijaz Ahmad.

and with that, perhaps the discussion is over, maybe one day it would continue, but unlike Mr. Turretin who then proceeded to cast aspersions on my character and essentially encourage his membership to engage in a hive mind of Muslimophobia, with a person by the name of Sammy Shmn, whether this is Sam Shamoun or a person using his name, it was highly disrespectful for Mr. Turretin to pervert academic discourse with mockery, perhaps this is normal to him, but in the world of proper discourse you try your best to keep personal attacks out of the discussion. May God guide such people.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]