Transcript Dialogue vs. Debate@

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 nonnegotiable 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 MuslimChristian 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 (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 Dialogue
For 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”
• Khurram Murad, “there is no point in
entering into dialogue unless it is Da’wah
[‘invitation’]”
(al-Faruqi 1992:9)
(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 Dialogue
Claude 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 ChristianMuslim 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 Deedat
Most prolific
Most popular
Gujarati origins
Lampoons 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 Campuses
University 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 antisupernaturalism (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 Debates
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 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-fortat’ 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
01-93
06-94
08-95
02-97
04-97
11-97
02-98
04-98
10-99
01-00
02-00
03-00
03-00
10-00
02-02
04-02
10-02
01-03
10-03
02-04
02-04
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Univ. of Toronto
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Univ. of Toronto
Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi
Cambridge Univ.
Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside Univ.
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Univ. of Manchester
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Univ. of Waterloo
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Birmingham Univ.
Jay Smith vs. Sh. Abdul Green South Bank Univ.
Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri
Friends Mtg.Hse
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Ryerson University
Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto
Oxford Union
Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Glasgow
Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally
Bradford
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Ga.Tech Univ. Atl
Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi
Oxford Union
Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib
Kingston Univ.
Jay Smith vs. Min. Ishmael Muh. Trinity Univ., Dublin
Jay Smith vs. Tamimi & Winters Cambridge Union
Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Nottingham Univ.
Keith Small vs. Sohaib Saeed Univ. of Edinburgh
Jay Smith vs. Dr. McElwain
Oxford Univ.
Title
Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?
Is the Qur'an the Word of God?
Is The Qur’an the Word of God?
Bible vs. Qur’an
Christ. vs. Isl. Relevancy & sin
Who is God?
Historicity of the Qur’an
Is the Qur’an the Word of God?
Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God
Who is the Historical Jesus?
Is Islam Relevant to the UK?
Was Jesus a Muslim?
Scriptures-Jesus-Trinity
Who is the Historical Jesus?
Is Islam Compatible w the West?
Bible vs. Qur’an
Oppose Islamic Law?
Islam a threat to the West?
Who is the real Jesus?
Who is the real Jesus?
Was Jesus a Muslim?
Problems with Debates:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Fear of Muslim’s Sensibilities
Fear of one’s security
Rarely done with Reciprocity in mind
Tendency towards apologetics only
Few experienced Debaters
Little teaching or preparing for debates
Debaters = good talkers w/ little knowledge
Unable to use ‘cut and parry’
Marriage….
Advantages with Debates:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Attracts many Muslims
Makes a greater impact (i.e. Al-Azhar)
Confronts Islam publicly
Starts the agenda moving
‘Pre-Evangelistic’
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
What weapons will we use?
“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)