DIALOGUE & DEBATE

2006(Jay Smith)

Introduction

Christians and Muslims, for much of the past 1400 years have been in conflict with each other, both

• theologically (as has been evidenced in the many debates between the two faiths) (Mulder 1977:footnote)

• physically (evidenced by the numerous wars and conflicts between ‘Christians’ and Muslims) (Rippin 1998:357)

Problem lies in their Primary Doctrines

Norman Daniel:“There are irreducible differences between non-

negotiable doctrines... The Christian creeds and the Qur’an are simply incompatible and there is no possibility of reconciling the content of the two faiths, each of which is exclusive, as long as they retain their identities” (Daniel 1993:335-336)

Christian Missiologists have posited 3 broad

theological positions:

• Exclusivism: Stresses the uniqueness of the gospel as God’s definitive revelation, while emphasizing the discontinuity with other faiths (debate & dialogue)

• Inclusivism: Salvation through Christ, but also through other religions as well (irenic & dialogue)

• Pluralism: All religions are equally imperfect human attempts to seek after God, yet they all lead equally to God (no discourse) (Hick 1987:3)

• Majority of Christians and Muslims = Inclusivists or Exclusivists

• Thus would use dialogue & debate

Definitions of DIALOGUE

• Oxford Dictionary:

‘a conversation, a talk, or discussion, in written form, or between two groups’ [based on the Greek dialegesthai = ‘to converse’]’ (Webster 2003:223)

• too broad

Dr. D. C. Mulder (20TH C. ‘inclusivist’ Definition):

“The essence of dialogue is the meeting between people in mutual respect, frankness and sincerity. Dialogue can never be an encounter of systems or religions in the abstract. In dialogue two or more people are meeting and they can never be totally identified with the system of religion or ideology to which they adhere...on the other hand every person in his or her religion is deeply influenced by tradition...that is why Christianity and Islam as such cannot have dialogue, but Christians and Muslims can and will be affected by the history of their respective religion...” (Mulder 1977: WCC Papers on 10 years of Muslim-Christian Dialogue foreword)

1st Century, New Testament:‘Dialegesthai’ = ‘to think different things, ponder on

them, and then dispute’ (May 1990:1)

Paul: • Moved from town to town • Entered Jewish Synagogues • Confronted their ideas and beliefs• A two-way flow of ideas• Acts 17:2-3, 17-18 = he sought to prove,

marshaling arguments to support his case, providing evidence, & thereby engaging in argument, due to his convinced preaching (Goldsmith :120)

• Paul’s intent was ‘not that his hearers were converted, but that they were persuaded’ (Acts 17:4).

Zebiri’s modern definitions:1) ‘Dialogue of Life’, or the ‘dialogue of presence’ (Zebiri 1997:37)

= spontaneous dialogue whenever religious communities live in proximity to one another

2) ‘Spiritual Dialogue’ = shared prayer contemplation, devotional reading of each other’s scriptures and spiritual classics, to better understand the world-view of the respective faiths.

3) ‘Dialogue of Needs’ practical co-operation,‘dialogue on social concerns’ (Riddell 2004:211) , shared experience, and shared vision, = partnership

4) ‘Discursive Dialogue’ = exchange of information, debate and intellectual enquiry, in order “to eradicate distortions and misunderstandings and thereby eliminate obstacles to conversion” (Zebiri 1997:38)

Four Principles of Dialogue Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of Churches)(British Council of 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

Purpose of DialogueFor missions: a vehicle to become better acquainted

with what the ‘other’ actually believes

1) for mutual understanding, since many conflicts are the result of ignorance;

2) to understand God better, -experience of him in the midst of dialogue;

3) to witness to one’s faith, -implies, “the other may choose to change their faiths”

4) to co-operate in areas -‘social’, or ‘secular’ dialogue (Riddell 2004:188)

(WCC)

• to achieve greater mutual respect and better understanding

• to raise questions which lead to deepening and renewal of spirituality,

• to lead Christians and Muslims fulfill common practical responsibilities (‘Christian-

Muslim Conversation’1989:1)

Evangelicals:

• “...to learn to appreciate, but it must chiefly be to teach and to tell men and women about Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (‘Christian Witness to Muslims’1980:23 [Note: even the title ‘Christian Witness to Muslims’ denotes the more robust purpose behind the dialogue, in contradistinction to the more inclusive WCC title of ‘Christian-Muslim Conversation’])

David Hesselgrave:• “Any form of dialogue that compromises the

uniqueness of the Christian gospel and the necessity that the adherents of other faiths repent and believe it, should be rejected and supplanted by forms of dialogue that enjoin conversion to Christ” (Hesselgrave 1981:126)

Muslims on dialogue:• al-Faruqi, Dialogue allows “the removal of

all barriers between men for a free intercourse of ideas where the categorical imperative is to let the sounder claim to the truth win” (al-Faruqi 1992:9)

• Khurram Murad, “there is no point in entering into dialogue unless it is Da’wah [‘invitation’]” (Siddiqui 1994:76)

History of Dialogue• 7th century, Muslims conquered, encountered a divided

Christianity: Byzantium & Copts of Egypt, Thus, initially, Christians living under Muslim rule were rarely persecuted (Dialogue between Patriarch John 1 vs. ‘Amr al-As’)

• 8th century, however, Christians suffer a general decline in status, converting to Islam. i.e. North Africa, the decline became almost complete (Siddiqui 1994:76) Dialogues: Leo III vs. Umar II

John of Damascus (d.749) vs. Saracen (Moffet, 2002:39)

Patriarch Timothy I vs. Caliph Mahdi (apologetical, not polemical)

• 9th century, Muslims, were able to surpass Christian sophistication (Zebiri 1997:25)

Christians outside Muslim rule were more polemical, as Muslims were seen as a military threat Dialogue: al-Kindi vs. al-Hashimi: ‘Qur’an & the prophet Muhammad’ (Muir 2002:11; Newman 1993:359)

20th Century:

Protestants:1)WCC: Created in 1937 = all the principle

Christian denominations (numbering over 330), representing about 400 million Christians, in 100 countries (Riddell 2004:107)

-‘Interfaith Movement’, but Muslim govt. officials, liberals, not religious scholars (Siddiqui 1997:30; Zebiri 1997:35-36)

-‘Secular’ and ‘Social’, irenical 2)Evangelicals, 1951 World Evangelical Alliance

(WEA), =114 church alliances, 700 million Christians, in 110 nations (Edwards 2003)

- discursive dialogues

Catholics:

• Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

(PCID) 1964, - irenical approach

Anglicans:‘Building Bridges’ January 2002, dealing with the fallout from the 911 attacks (Riddell 2004:153)

-Christians organized many dialogues

-Muslims were slow to follow suit-Except Muslim governments, such as Libya, Tunisia, and Jordan (Zebiri 1997:35)

-Or individual liberal Muslims in the West (Zebiri 1997:36)

Rules for DialogueClaude Geffre:

1) respect the differences in the other

2) respect ones own faith, and so 3) speak honestly and candidly about them,

even if it hurts the sensibilities of their counterparts (Geffre 1993:101-113)

Problems with Dialogue

1. Impractical:• In 1966 Victor Hayward identified a real problem:

“If dialogue is used to break down barriers of prejudice, indifference, suspicion and fear, and practical steps are taken to promote understanding, co-operation, and relationships favourable to genuine dialogue and witness, no such agreement was possible [with the Muslim] in the realm of theology” (Hayward 1977:13)

• The Irenical form of dialogue can rarely publicly engage with, in any deep and meaningful way, that which is foundational to each faith, yet likewise separates them, namely, their conflicting and often contradictory belief statements.

2. Unequal• i.e. WCC sponsored dialogue 1976, Chambésy, Switzerland. • -Khurshid Ahmad -Islamic Foundation (Leicester, England) = slung

invective and vitriol in the direction of Christian missions, pinpointing four criticisms of Christian missions: 1) misrepresentation of the teachings of Islam, and the message of the prophet, 2) concentrated on the weak and helpless, 3) missions aim was to subvert the faith and culture of Islam, and 4) that it subjected Muslims to covert discrimination and repression), summarized as an exercise which “failed to commend itself as something noble and holy” (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:131-132)

• -Dr. Kerr apologized, accepting that Muslims were justified to feel “incensed to the point of outrage by certain aspects of Christian action in the name of mission” (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:134)

• Thanked the Muslim participants for attending, despite the fact that they had, “personal experiences of western Christian missionaries which had left him suspicious of Christian motives” (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:135)

• Nowhere did he seek reciprocity, asking why so few Muslim countries even permitted, let alone encouraged Christian missions in their respective jurisdictions, nor why so many freedoms demanded and afforded by Muslims living in the West are simply not permitted by Christians in their own lands.

3. Un-trustworthy• Muslims suspect dialogue, as it leads to religious

syncretism• Or compromises the faith (Glasser 1981)

• Seen as a subtle ploy towards prosletysm• A Western Christian initiative. • Perceived as an adjunct of colonialism• Covert form of evangelism (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy]

1977:131-132)

• Invariably Muslims are invited as guests, not able to set the agenda, so they feel they have little to gain (Zebiri 1997:36)

• Siddiqui = “It is an extension of a whole Western Christian domination” (Sidiqqui 1994:59)

4. Unpopular• Dialogues simply do not attract Muslims who represent

their communities, and therefore have little impact on those same communities.

• i.e. = ‘Faith and Power’ conferences, convened in 1997, all had majority Christians to Muslims, so that the final Faith and Society conference, convened in June 2003, at the London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, of the 47 people who took part, only seven were Muslims, five of whom had to be there as they were presenters on the day (Riddell 2004:157)

• As Riddell says, “there was virtually no participation of the rank and file from the Muslim community. The reasons are unclear...though there seems to have been no attempt to promote the event in the British Muslim community” (Riddell 2004:158)

CONCLUSION:

• Dialogues do bring Christians and Muslims together, they ‘get the ball going’

• They offer a wide range of models• They are usually promoted by Christians only.• Attract Liberal-Western & elite Muslims.• Tend not to be robust, more acquiescent on the

part of the Christian participants.• And most importantly, they don’t reach the radical

Muslims, the ones causing most of the problems today.

So, what’s the solution?

DEBATES:• In the wake of 911, and the consequent growing unrest between Christian

and Muslims, there are those who must be wondering whether inter-faith dialogue, while proven adequate in bringing about mutual understanding between the two faiths, can cope with today’s more aggressive and growing radical element within Islam. Thus, if we are going to confront this more radicalized form of Islam, we will need to incorporate new approaches to deal with such a paradigm, ones which confront the foundations of the more radical elements within the Muslim community, particularly those theological and historical foundations rooted in Islamic scriptures (and the Islamic Traditions), to which the radicals look for authority in substantiating the actions they carry out.

• Christian-Muslim debates are a growing part of the mosaic of Christian-Muslim interaction in recent years to meet just that sort of need. These debates primarily “relate to a specific subset of the Muslim community, namely radical Islamists, for whom other dialogical approaches have not proved effective in building bridges between communities” (Riddell 2004:162) For them, dialogue is simply not an option, because the premise behind such an exercise, to build bridges, seems irrelevant, if not even counter-productive.

Maryam Jameelah:“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)

• With sentiments such as these, it is no surprise that across the country, on university campuses, over the past few years, Christian and Muslim apologists and da’ists have been coming together to engage in 2-3, sometimes even 5 hour debates, in front of hundreds, even thousands, on subjects ranging right across the apologetical/polemical spectrum

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)

• This disdain is echoed in Lewis’s other treatise on the subject, Muslim Discovery of Europe, where he noticed that in the Persian, Turkish and Arabic languages, Christians have commonly been referred to as ‘Kafirin’ (infidels), while in Ottoman usage in particular, when referring to Europeans, it was customary to add curses or insults to the names (Lewis 1982:172-174)

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’”)

Who Debates?:

Transnational Islamic organizations incorporating da’wah as their primary aims:

• Muslim World League

• World Islamic Call Society• Islamic Council of Europe (Siddiqui 1994:148ff)

• FOSIS in the UK

Ahmed DeedatMost prolificMost popularGujarati originsLampoons Christian Missionaries• “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. Maurice Bucaille

The Bible, the Qur’an and Science

-‘Scientific Exegesis’

-Most popular in breadth of circulation

-Employs ‘Eisegesis’

Current Debaters:

Shabir Ally (Christology of Jesus)

Abdul Raheem Green (Source Criticism)

Dr. Zakir Naik (Trinity & Science)

Dr. Jamal Badawi (Qur’an vs. Bible)

Where are the Debates:University CampusesUniversity Unions (Parliamentary style)FOSIS (Federation of Student’s Islamic Societies)ISOC (Islamic Societies)Christian Unions (‘Universities and Colleges Christian

Fellowship’ – UCCF)Why?• They are culturally relevant…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

Methodology of Muslim Debate:

• 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)

“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)

2) Muslims, who speak often about misinformation are often guilty of the same. “Muslim anti-Christian polemic goes relatively unnoticed...because it occurs within an almost exclusively Muslim market

• Rarely is Islam subjected to critical scrutiny” (Zebiri 1997:89)

Christian DebatesChristians 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 and 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)

Colin Chapman (7 Criticisms)

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

1)Attacks against Islam sometimes degenerate into polemics, resulting in nothing more than a ‘tit-for-tat’ criticism of Christianity by Muslims, 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 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 Muslim 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 Muslims 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 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 the Muslim protagonist, 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)?

Christians Supportive of Debates:

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

Tyrannus – Acts 19)“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

Westerners Supportive of Debates:

• Maxine Rodinson regrets that ‘any 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 Debates:Date Debaters Venue Title

01-93 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?06-94 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto Is the Qur'an the Word of God?08-95 Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi Cambridge Univ. Is The Qur’an the Word of God?02-97 Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside Univ. Bible vs. Qur’an04-97 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Manchester Christ. vs. Isl. Relevancy & sin11-97 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Waterloo Who is God?02-98 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Birmingham Univ. Historicity of the Qur’an04-98 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Abdul Green South Bank Univ. Is the Qur’an the Word of God?10-99 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri Friends Mtg.Hse Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God01-00 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Ryerson University Who is the Historical Jesus?02-00 Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto Oxford Union Is Islam Relevant to the UK?03-00 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Glasgow Was Jesus a Muslim? 03-00 Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally Bradford Scriptures-Jesus-Trinity10-00 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Ga.Tech Univ. Atl Who is the Historical Jesus?02-02 Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi Oxford Union Is Islam Compatible w the West?04-02 Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib Kingston Univ. Bible vs. Qur’an10-02 Jay Smith vs. Min. Ishmael Muh.Trinity Univ., Dublin Oppose Islamic Law?01-03 Jay Smith vs. Tamimi & Winters Cambridge Union Islam a threat to the

West?10-03 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Nottingham Univ. Who is the real Jesus? 02-04 Keith Small vs. Sohaib Saeed Univ. of Edinburgh Who is the real Jesus?02-04 Jay Smith vs. Dr. McElwain Oxford Univ. Was Jesus a Muslim?

Problems with Debates:

1) Fear of Muslim’s Sensibilities

2) Fear of one’s 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) Unable to use ‘cut and parry’

9) 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 the first time Muslims have

heard legitimate criticism of the Qur’an & Muh.

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

8) Creates a Christian Public Presence

Impromptu Speaker’s Corner Debates

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?