“The Support for Dialogue & Debate in Muslim/Christian

Apologetics/Polemics

2010(Jay Smith)

Introduction• In the wake of 911 and 7-7, we are finding a more

aggressive and growing radical element within Islam…

• Riddell: “There is an international network of radical Muslims, committed to terrorism that must be stopped. They pose a legitimate threat which cannot be ignored, but confronted, and immediately” (Riddell 2004:172)

• Most of Missiology is geared toward the 15% Arab speaking world, but much of the ideological challenges are coming from the 85% non-Arab speakers (i.e. 260 m. Arabs vs. 900 m. Asians)

• We need a new method to deal with these more radical and public challenges.

Maryam Jameelah, a recent convert to Islam, living in the UK• “We must crush the conspiracies of

Zionism, Freemasonry, Orientalism and foreign missions both with the pen and with the sword. We cannot afford peace and reconciliation with the Ahl al-Kitab until we can humble them and gain the upper hand” (Jameelah 1989:412)

So what then is the solution?

• A possible approach, which carries on from that of dialogue, is that of ‘discursive dialogues’ (Zebiri 1997:38), more popularly known as open and public debates, an exercise whereby Christian and Muslim opponents present their positions, then openly criticize each other’s views, and respond to the criticisms using rebuttals, and summations, with the possibility of open questions and answers from the floor.

DIALOGUES:DIALOGUES:Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of

Churches)Churches)• Dialogue begins when people meet each other, pointing out

that each person needs to be approached as individuals, and not simply representing a system of beliefs.

• Dialogue depends upon mutual understanding and mutual trust, suggesting that each person should be permitted to define themselves concerning what they believed.

• Dialogue makes it possible to share in service to the community, alluding to the fact that dialogue can be a vehicle to bring about harmony between those of separate faiths.

• Dialogue becomes the medium of authentic witness, suggesting that because it begins in a context of trust, dialogue allows not only a witness of one’s own faith, but “assumes the freedom of a person of any faith, including the Christian, to be convinced by the faith of another” (Riddell 2004:111)

• Inclusive Principles

Problems with Dialogue

Impractical:rarely engage publicly with that which is foundational to each faith, yet likewise separates them, namely, their conflicting and often contradictory belief statements.

Unequal No reciprocity

Un-trustworthyMuslims suspect dialogue, as it leads to religious syncretism, compromises the faith, a subtle ploy towards prosletysm, a Western Christian initiative, perceived as an adjunct of colonialism, a covert form of evangelism, since usually Muslims are invited as guests, and are not able to set the agenda, so they feel they have little to gain

UnpopularThey do not attract Muslims

CONCLUSION:

• Dialogues do bring Christians and non-Christians together• Dialogues ‘get the ball going’, start the agenda• They offer a wide range of models

BUT:• They are usually promoted by Christians only• They attract Liberal-Western & elite Muslims• They tend not to be robust, more acquiescent on the part

of the Christian participants.• And most importantly, they don’t reach the ones causing

most of the problems today (i.e. the radical Muslims)

So, what’s the solution?

DEBATES - Confrontation:

• (2 Cor.10:5) “demolish arguments and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”

• Openly challenging the beliefs of another person, using literature, media, etc...

• Using the conventional format of public debate.

Advantages:• Gets right to the ‘nub’ of the problem

• One of the few vehicles which confronts Islam publicly

• Is conducive to Muslims, as it fits their culture, and their form of communication

• Brings in the crowds

• Helps Christians feel confident

• Forces Christianity into the public sphere, where it belongs, but hasn’t been…

Problems:

• Can create tensions

• Goes against our cultural proclivities

• Few places to train, or practice

• Not many good models today

• Consequently, not very popular

• Can create fear of repercussions

• Don’t know the answers to the questions (FAQs)…so…LEARN THEM!

Colin Chapman (7 Criticisms)

1854 Munazara in Agra: between Carl Pfander & Valpery French vs. Rahmat Allah & Dr. Wazir Khan

1)Attacks against another belief sometimes degenerate into polemics, resulting in nothing more than a ‘tit-for-tat’ criticism of Christianity by them, and vice versa.

• Yes, however, culturally good for communication, & exchange of ideas, since the Gospel is confrontational, so should expect ‘tit-for-tat’ and let people compare, and come to their own conclusions.

• Zwemer, “If the missionary to Moslems has a creed of less content and holds it less passionately than the loyal and orthodox Moslem holds his own-so much the worse for the missionary” (Zwemer 1941:225)

2) Debates appealed too much to the reason and the intellect, and not enough to the heart

• Yet, Muslims/Humanists instigate reasoned intellectual challenges, geared towards auth. of Bible, & Jesus

3) Christian debaters are not aware of the latest Biblical critical research ongoing in the West, and so become helpless when opponents use them.

• ‘Shame on us’! Learn it, always be a student, in praxis

4) Debates are conditioned by the social and political context in which we work, i.e. freedom to be critical.

• Yes, so let’s use those freedoms, and not run away, or only allow our opponents these freedoms!

5) We should question the validity of public debates which concentrate entirely on theological issues at the expense of the many social and political issues which both Muslims/Humanists and Christians share in common

• Be involved in ‘social gospel’, but introduce Jesus crucified, and debates will naturally evolve.

6) Responding in a polemical fashion merely mimics the agenda of our protagonists, which merely forces the Christian on to the defensive, and we fall into a scriptural paradigm we probably don’t even accept ourselves.

• Confuses content and methodology, Jesus is our revelation, but debate helps us convince them so.

7) Chapman argues for a complete cessation of polemics itself, believing it to be not only disrespectful, but unloving.

• Define disrespect and love, was Christ disrespectful or unloving in chasing out the money-changers (Mat.21:12-13), or confronting the Pharisees (Matt.23:13-33)?

Objections

• “I have never known anyone who was won over by an argument”

• “You may win the argument, but lose the person”

(note: the irony in these two quips is that they are both fielded as arguments themselves, with the intention of persuading the hearer to their position, employing the very vehicle they seek to dismiss)

• Debates must be, “attempts to support certain views with reasons” (Weston 2000:xi)

• Two reasons:• Firstly because they are useful in ascertaining

which views are better than others, by assessing which has the stronger conclusions.

• Secondly by offering reasons and evidence that convinced you, arguments then become a means to explain and defend them, for “it is not a mistake to have strong views…the mistake is to have nothing else”

A Definition of Debates:

• “a formal, oral confrontation between two individuals, teams, or groups who present arguments to support opposing sides of a question, generally according to a set form or procedure” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 3, 15th Ed., Chicago, 1993, pg. 943)

Types of Debate:

[1] University Debates:

–Most common formal

style of debate–Muslim student groups:

•FOSIS/ISOC (UK), or MSA-(US)

–Christian student groups: •UCCF (UK) or Campus Crusade, IVP, RZIM (US)

–Use usually two adversaries, debating a theological issue–Primarily against Christianity. Rarely reciprocity used.–Two Models: Parliamentary & Populer

The ‘Parliamentary’ model:• Oxford, Cambridge, Durham Unions• Proposition vs.

Opposition• 2-4 people each• Controlled…protocol• ‘Points of Information’• Benefits:

– Wider representation, and multiplicity of styles• Weaknesses:

– Students use it for entertainment, sophistry, trivializing serious positions.

• Less time leads to simplification

The ‘Populer’ model:

• 2 Speakers, experts • 25 - 40 mins. = paper• Rebuttals,

– followed by summation, then by Q & A• Benefits: Easier to schedule, fewer people

involved, permitting better known academics, more flexible, more time given to topics, better contact with speakers, Q & A forces speakers to meet audiences needs.

• Weaknesses: Tend to be more ‘gladitorial’, can lead to tension, thus shunned by Christians, the secular world and university administrations.

[2] Impromptu Debates: (‘Extemporaneous debates’)

• ‘high street’ (book tables)

• University classrooms• Social gatherings (tea shops)

• ‘Speaker’s Corner’• 5 - 2 - 1 = Time allotments• Benefits: Quick, easy, topical, ‘impromptu’,

accessibility of speaker, ‘vote with their feet’, Crowds facial response

• Weaknesses: Heckling, Crowd control, Interruptions, violence.

[3] Radio Debates:

• 2 Speakers• 10-20 min. positions• ‘vetted’ phone in Q & A• Benefits:

-Cheap, Quick, Easy to prepare, largest audiences, Largest reach, Most impact, in inaccessible areas.

• Weaknesses: -Distant, impersonal, no Face-to-face contact, thus no relationship, with little follow-up, and easy to censure.

[4] Internet - Online debating:

• Online Forums, Bulletin Boards, Blogging, & ‘Youtube’ (Pfanderfilms)

• Benefits: – Variety of topics, 24/7, – Universal, for everyone– ‘Arm-chair Evangelists’– Good training, – Topical, & creates ownership– Great preparation for ministry

• Weaknesses: – Distant, impersonal, no Face-to-face contact, thus little

relationship, with little follow-up, and problem with vitriol.

Muslim Debates:

Historical precedence for debate:• Debate is not new to Islam, for this mode of exchange

fits within its paradigm of Islam’s perception of the West.

• Lewis speaks to this perception in his book on Cultures in Conflict, saying, “Since Europe has historically been the Islamic world’s most inveterate military adversary, and since it has been perceived by Muslims in primarily religious terms, references to Christians in Muslim writings have usually been hostile. In light of Europe’s military and cvilizational inferiority, which endured for several centuries, references to Europe or Christendom in Muslim writings were often disdainful” (Lewis 1995:13)

Reasons Muslim’s, today, Debate:

1) Due to the political and economic dominance of Western countries, there is some dignity in claiming moral and religious superiority.

2) Polemical debates help to reinforce the lines of demarcation between Islam and Christianity.

3) Debates can be used to convert Christians to Islam.

4) The Qur’an provides a model for polemics, engaging Christians, Pagans Jews in arguments over their beliefs(an example often used is that found in Surah 3:61, which was supposedly spoken to a deputation of Christians from Najran, and says, “If anyone disputes with you concerning [i.e. Jesus] after the knowledge which has come to you, say: ‘Let us gather together our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, and pray and invoke the curse of God on those who lie’”)

Where are the Debates:

University Campuses

University Unions (Parliamentary style)

FOSIS (Federation of Student’s Islamic Societies)

ISOC (Islamic Societies)

Christian Unions (‘Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship’ – UCCF)

MDI, Hittin Institute, Muhajiroun (Populist)

CCi (Christians Challenging islam)

Why they are Popular:

• They are culturally relevant…

• They are a passionate form of communication!

• They attract large numbers of Muslims

• They are neutral and central

• They are non-threatening

• They are cheap

• They are Conducive to students

Who Debates?:

• Students, or Experts

• Many Muslim Experts

• Few Christian Examples

Let’s look at the Primary Muslim Debaters:

↓

Ahmed Deedat:Most prolificMost popularGujarati originsLampoons Christian Missionaries• Zebiri: “He employs a flamboyant style [which]

seems as much designed to entertain as to edify; he employs ridicule and sarcasm, and not infrequently raises laughter from the Muslim section of his audience. He also utilizes crude language, and images which seem designed to shock” (Zebiri 1997:47)

• However, “the quality of his work, which after all hardly aspires to go beyond the level of rhetoric and apologetic, is poor even by the standards of religious polemic” (Zebiri 1997:47)

Dr. Jamal Badawi:• most prolific Muslim

speaker in the West in the 70s and the 80s

• Egyptian• Professor of economics

at the university of Halifax, in Canada. • No formal training in Islamic or Christian theology • Books on Islam and Muslim-Christian issues are

quite popular• Best known for his defenses of the Qur’an

(http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Badawi/index.htm)

• He is one of the most effective da’wah speakers and has hundreds of lectures and debates on tapes

Shabir Ally:• Was Dr. Badawi’s primary

disciple• Founder of the ‘Islamic

Da'wah Centre’, Toronto• Currently the most wide-spread speaker and

debater Islam has in the English speaking world• Spending most of his time debating Christians on

Western university campuses(http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Shabir-Ally/index.html)

• Themes focus on the authority of the Bible, and the Christology of Christ.

• Encyclopedic mind, able to speak for hours, on a variety of subjects, all without notes

Dr. Zakir Naik:• President of the Islamic

Research Foundation,

Mumbia (Bombay)• Bachelor of Medicine,

and a Bachelor of

Surgery (M.B.B.S.) • Able to quote extensive passages of the Qur'an, as well

as other books, from memory (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Naik/index.htm)

• Speaks English, Arabic, Hebrew, Urdu and Sanskrit respectively

• His spontaneous and convincing answers to questions at the end of his debates are ‘legendary’

Methodology of Muslim Debaters:

• Take debating more seriously, thus put months into planning, & seek advantage at every turn.

• Last-minute challenges, using local vicars with little experience.

• Quote obscure liberal ‘Christian’ sources in their criticisms of Christianity, forcing Christian on the defensive.

• Zebiri: “Sources are often used selectively. From the broad spectrum of opinion which is represented in Western scholarship, it is often the extreme end of the spectrum which is chosen; in this way authors can usually find what they set out to look for” (Zebiri 1997:85)

Liberal Christian Sources:

• Always Polemical, quoting Liberal Christian scholars• Adolph von Harnack (d.1930), the most often quoted

Christian scholar, due to his liberal opinions (Zebiri 1997:85)

• Bousset and Loisy = 19th and early 20th century scholarship concerning St. Paul’s Hellenistic influences, rather than his Jewish roots (Zebiri 1997:85)

• Edward Carpenter: Pagan sources • J.M. Robertson: Pagan Christianity (Zebiri 1997:86)

• Edward Gibbon: Christianity’s black history in ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ (Zebiri 1997:85)

• Bertrand Russell: Why I am not a Christian is used to expose the history of the church

• Ernest Renan = New Testament criticism, and anti-supernaturalism (a criticism which also hurts their Islamic paradigm).

• Robert Briffault and William Draper: to show the debt the West has on Islam (Zebiri 1997:85)

Problems with Muslim Debate:

1) Negative bias both in selection of data to be presented and in interpretation of that data” (Zebiri 1997:84)

2) Muslims, who speak often about misinformation are often guilty of the same.

3) “Muslim anti-Christian polemic goes relatively unnoticed...because it occurs within an almost exclusively Muslim market, and rarely is Islam subjected to critical scrutiny” (Zebiri 1997:89)

4) Due to their control, they have become masters of the Summation, and Q & A, using quick riposte, either factual or humorous to sway audiences.

CHRISTIAN DEBATES

• Christians don’t like debates

• It goes against our Western cultural proclivities

• Religion is a private affair

• Confrontation is not ‘Christ-like’

• Prefer dialogues with Muslims

Thus:

• No schools to train debaters

• Dearth of strategies, books & videos

• Dearth of models of good Christian debaters

Christians Critical of Debates:

• Henry Martyn (d.1812), “I lay not much stress upon clear arguments. The work of God is seldom wrought in this way” (Cragg 1992:23)

• Brown, missionary to the Sudan & Jordan: “The natural reaction of any man when his beliefs are attacked is to maintain them the more resolutely and even to discover better reasons for doing so. The results of missionary preaching during the past century and a half demonstrate with tragic clearness how unproductive such a method really is” (Brown 1962:90)

• Robert Henry Boll (1936)

“So far as my acquaintance with religious discussion goes, there is no poorer method of seeking to arrive at truth than a debate, especially oral debate. I have heard of some exceptions, but as the general rule, I think the statement will stand.” (Boll 1936:32)

Christians Supportive of Debates:• Jesus (against the Pharisees – Matt. 23:13-33)• Paul (Mars Hill, Aeropagus, Lecture Hall of

Tyrannus – Acts 19)Zwemer: “Paul disputed in the synagogues (Acts 17:17) in the school of one Tyrannus, daily (Acts 19:9) for two years. In Jerusalem he disputed against the Grecians until they sought to slay him (Acts 9:29)...II Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians could be classified as controversial literature of the first century...His military vocabulary is proof enough that he was no spiritual pacifist but fought a good fight against the enemies of the Cross of Christ and all those who preached ‘another gospel’” (Zwemer 1941:225)

• Catholic creeds, such as the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds, came out of Polemics.

• The Reformation = a religious controversy.

• The Gospel of John = Nearly all the discourses were begun by controversy

19th and 20th Century Examples:

• Dr. Carl Pfander (d. 1865)-Agra Munazara of 1854-Balance of Truth (‘Mizan ul-Haqq’)

• William St. Clair Tisdall (d.1928)-Critiqued the origins of Islam-‘Sources of Islam’

• Samuel Zwemer-Arabia and Egypt-‘Muslims worshiped a different God’-‘Muhammad was insincere and opportunistic’-Controversy, so long as it was not discourteous, was an appropriate method of evangelism to Muslims

Current Westerners Supportive of Debates:

• Maxine Rodinson regrets that ‘any public criticism of the Prophet’s moral attitudes’ are becoming increasingly taboo” (Rodinson 1979:59)

• Andrew Rippin, “The Irenic approach has led to the unfortunate result of a reluctance on the part of many scholars to follow all the way through with their insights and results, particularly concerning the historical dimensions of the faith that conceives itself as having a stake in that very history” (Rippin 1985:159)

EXAMPLES OF RECENT CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DEBATES

Date Debaters Venue Title

• Aug 1981 Josh McDowell vs. A. Deedat Durban, S. Africa “Was Christ Crucified?”• Dec 1985 Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat London “Is Jesus God?”• Aug 1986 Jimmy Swaggart vs. A. Deedat Louisiana Univ. “Is the Bible God’s Word?”• Aug 1988 Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat Birmingham “Bible vs. the Qur’an”• Jan 1993 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?”• ___ 1993 Callum Beck vs. Hamza Malik Toronto “Salvation in the Bible & Qur’ an”• ___ 1994 Ernest Hahn vs. Jamal Badawi U. of Waterloo            “Bible according to the Qur’ an”• Jun 1994 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Is the Qur'an the Word of God?”• Aug 1995 Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi Cambridge Univ. “Is The Qur’an the Word of God?”• Jul 1996 Robert Morey vs. Shabir Ally Toronto “Source & God of Islam”• Nov 1996 Dr. R. Morey vs. Jamal Badawi Columbia Univ. “Veracity of Allah & the Qur’an”• Feb 1997 Dr. W. Craig vs. Jamal Badawi ? “What is God Like?”• Feb 1997 Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside Univ. “Bible vs. Qur’an”• Apr 1997 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Manchester “Xtian vs. Isl. Relevancy & Sin”• Nov 1997 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Waterloo “Who is God?”• Feb 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Birmingham Univ. “Historicity of the Qur’an”• Apr 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shk. Abdul Green South Bank Univ. “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”• May 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Leicester Univ. “Bible vs. the Qur’an”• Oct 1999 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri London “Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God”• Jan 2000 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Ryerson University “Who is the Historical Jesus?”• Feb 2000 Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto Oxford Union “Is Islam Relevant to the UK?”• Mar 2000 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Glasgow “Was Jesus a Muslim?”• Mar 2000 Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally Bradford “Scriptures-Jesus-Trinity”• Apr 2000 William Campbell vs. Zakir Naik Skokie, Ill. “Bible, Qur’an, & Science”• Oct 2000 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Ga.Tech., Atlanta “Who is the Historical Jesus?”• Oct 2000 David Shenk vs. Shabir Ally London “God in the Scriptures”• Feb 2002 Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi Oxford Union “Is Islam Compatible w the West?”

Date Debaters Venue Title

• Mar 04/02 W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”• (Mar 05) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally York Univ. “What Must I do to be Saved?” • (Mar 06) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally McMaster Univ. “God in X-tianity & Islam”• (Mar 07) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally Univ. of W.Ontario “Who is the True Jesus?”• Apr 2002 Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib Kingston Univ. “Bible vs. Qur’an”• Oct 2002 Jay Smith vs. Min. Ishmael Muh. Trinity Univ., Dublin “Is Islamic Law Relevant today?”• Jan 2003 Jay Smith vs. Tamimi & Winters Cambridge Union “Islam a threat to the West?”• Mar 2003 Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally Regent Univ. “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”• Oct 2003 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Nottingham Univ. “Who is the real Jesus?”• Feb 2004 Keith Small vs. Sohaib Saeed Univ. of Edinburgh “Who is the real Jesus?”• Feb 2004 Jay Smith vs. Dr. McElwain Oxford Univ. “Was Jesus a Muslim?”• Nov 2004 Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally ‘Faith Under Fire’ “Was Jesus: Divine or Prophet?”• Oct 2005 Jay Smith vs. Abdul Hakim Quick Jo-Burg, So. Africa “Peace in Islam & Christianity”• Jan 2006 Jay Smith vs. Iqbal Siddiqui Durham Union “Is Islam compatible to the West?”• Jan 2006 Jay Smith vs. Abdul Rahman London “Islam vs. Christian compatibility”• Feb 2006 Jay Smith vs. Ayatollah Milani St.Georges Med. Sch. “Peace in Islam vs. Christianity”• Feb 17/06 Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Australia “Bible vs. Qur’an”• (Feb 18) Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Aust. “Is Jesus Lord?”• (Feb 19) Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Aust. “Way of Salvation?”• Apr 2006 Jay Smith vs. Muh. Bahmanpour London “Was Jesus Crucified?”• May 2006 James White vs. Shabir Ally Biola University “Is the New Testament Inspired?”• May 2006 Jay Smith vs. Tajik Da’ists Kazan, Russia “Islam vs. Christianity”• July 2006 Peter Barnes vs. Yusuf Estes Hurstville, Australia “Way to God’s Salvation”

Current Problems with Christian Debates:

1) Fear of Muslim’s Sensibilities

2) Fear our one security

3) Rarely done with Reciprocity in mind

4) Tendency towards apologetics only

5) Few experienced Debaters

6) Little teaching or preparing for debates

7) Debaters = good talkers w/ little knowledge

8) Debaters = great knowledge but can’t talk

9) Unable to use ‘cut and parry’

10)Marriage….

Advantages with Debates:1) Attracts many Muslims2) Makes a greater impact (i.e. Al-Azhar)3) Confronts Islam publicly4) Starts the agenda moving5) ‘Pre-Evangelistic’6) For many Muslims the first time they have

heard legitimate criticism of the Qur’an & Muhammad

7) Muslims tend to initiate them (fits their cultural paradigm)

8) Creates a Christian Public Presence

Impromptu Speaker’s Corner Debates

Salam & Jay

Heckling (‘Triangulization’)

Formal Debates

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they are divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ”

(II Corinthians 10:3-5)

What weapons will we use?What weapons will we use?