APOLOGETICS & POLEMICS
WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Jay Smith
2012
Omar Sharif & Asif Hanif
(April 30, 2003)
Mohammad Hamid
(February 2008)
Introduction
In the wake of 9/11 and 7/7,
we are finding a more
aggressive and growing
radical element within Islam,
especially here in the UK…
A Local problem
i.e. quote by Maryam Jameelah, a 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)
In 2001, how did Muslims in
the UK define themselves?
By 2002, radicals had risen to 25%
By 2003-2005: No polls were carried out…..
On February 19th, 2006:
over 40% considered themselves radical…*
while 20 % supported Suicide bombers
(source: Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell, Islam In Conflict, Leicester, England: IVP, 2003, chapters 10-12, and page 193. Also a lecture by Riddell on the theme, “Muslim Views on the World” held at
the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, and sponsored by the London Lectures Trust, October 23, 2003)
* Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 19, 2006
Bishop warns of no-go
zones for non-Muslims
Christian preachers face
arrest in Birmingham
A Global Problem:
Poll on radicalisation
by Pew International (March 2004)
Turkey = 31%
Morocco = 45%
Jordan = 55%
Pakistan = 65%
(80 million out of 140
million people!)
The dilemma today
Post 9/11 and 7/7, there is one faith which stands against all
others (compromising ‘Multi-culturalism’)
An aggressive and growing ‘radical Islam’
It is a ‘scriptured religion’
i.e. ‘Dispatches’ Undercover Mosque: views sourced in the
Qur’an
Creating a ‘Clash of Civilizations’
(Huntington’s thesis: 1996, reiterated by Lord Carey the
autumn of 2006)
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).
Two Methods to deal with
radical Islam today:
•Irenic, Traditional Method
•Confrontational Model
Irenic, Traditional Method
•Premise: Friendship & “inter-faith dialogue” (‘Grace’
method, ‘Insider Movement’).
–Violence is simply an aberration, practiced by a few, due
to geo-Political problems (Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan)
•Solution: Solve these geo-political problems, something for
govts. to do.
•Church= listen to the Muslim’s grievances, address them
with a repentant spirit, give them a voice through the vehicle
of inter-faith dialogues, and refrain from any form of public
confrontation.
Confrontational Model
•Premise: Violence is not an aberration, nor recent, nor due
th
to 19 c. colonialism, or American imperialism, or even to
recent geo-political flare-ups. Islam has always used
violence, legitimized by passages in the Qur’an, and
exemplified by Muhammad himself (Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell,
Islam In Conflict, Leicester, England: IVP, 2003:7-8).
•Solution: Confront the ideology which supports the
revelation which authorizes this violence
Secularist’s Solutions:
•Ignore them: do not give them a voice, pushing them
underground (i.e. Anjem Choudry)
•Ban them, or anyone confronting them (i.e. Geert Wilders
and ‘Fitna’)
•Redefine them: ‘Quilliam Project’ - Islamic model based on
Western humanistic ideals.
(headed by Maajid Nawaz, Ed Husain (formerly HUT members)
•Eradicate them, by imposing increasingly repressive laws,
or the ‘barrel of a gun’, often to disastrous effect.
Problem with these solutions:
• Islam is based on an ideology, derived from a ‘divinely’ revealed text
(the Qur’an), and best modeled by a man (their prophet Muhammad, as
exemplified in the Islamic traditions).
• It cannot be simply removed by either ignoring it, or by creating a
humanistic alternative, or by employing the use of repressive laws, or
even by using violence.
• History shows that ideological movements, especially those derived
from perceived ‘divinely inspired’ text, such as we have with Islam thrive
and expand when the members feel repressed or have been attacked
violently from without. We need look at our own Christian history to find
good examples.
So what then is the solution?
•Confront Islam’s ideological and Historical foundations
publicly
•Prove them to be either false, irrelevant, or both
Who Must Confront Them?
THE STATE!
It has the might and ‘where-with-all’
Its function is to protect
Its function is to police
THE STATE CANNOT CONFRONT THEM
-The state cannot deal with religious ideology.
•i.e. Danish Cartoons
•‘flushed’ Qur’an-Guantanamo
-Its not their remit
•Due to the separation of the church and state
–They don’t understand the ideology, or its authority
–They don’t have the tools to confront it
–Incapable of understanding the question, to say
nothing of the solution
-So, politicians may not criticize Islam’s Foundations
•i.e. Tony Blair and his ‘peaceful’ Qur’an
-State seeks unanimity…inclusivity
The Media:
•No, they are too timid, too inept, or too politically
correct (i.e. Danish Muhammad Cartoons)
•Wouldn’t understand the question, let alone the
solution
Academia:
•They do understand the question, and the solution,
but:
•Won’t engage publicly, due to their institutional
responsibilities (Muslim educational loans)
•They fear repercussions (i.e. Salman Rushdie,
Taslima Nasreen, Taha Hussein, etc…)
WHO CAN CHALLENGE RADICAL MUSLIMS?
RADICAL CHRISTIANS!
• We have no-one we are responsible for
other than Jesus Christ
• We start from the same paradigm as
Muslims (‘a book modeled by a man’)
• We understand the question, and the
solution
• We can understand them best
• We have the tools to confront them
–MSS evidence
–Historical Criticism
–SWAD
We have historical precedence
• Tübingen & Welhausen: Historical criticism against Christianity in the late
th
and early 20 centuries (attacking historical authenticity of the Bible, and the
credibility of Jesus Christ).
• Result: It brought about an enormous disillusionment within the European
church, Leading to millions leaving the church
• So that now hardly 5-7% of its citizens believe in God, or even go to church
(except for christenings, weddings or funerals)
• But then we did our homework, found the historical material to support our
Bible (i.e. BM/L tour)
• Brought about renewed confidence in our Scriptures and in Jesus Christ as a
universal model
th
19
•We have the best, and only alternative
Examples
-Bible vs. Qur’an
-Kingdom of God vs. ‘Khilafah’
-Women in the Bible vs. Women in the Qur’an
-‘Yahweh’ vs. ‘Allah’
-Jesus vs. Muhammad
-Peace in Christianity vs. Violence in Islam
-Relevancy of Christianity vs. Islam
Church’s Responsibility
•Go beyond dialogue to public debate, using apologetics
th
th
and polemics (John of Damascus (8 c.), ‘al-Kindi’ (9 c.), Raymond
Lull
th
(13
c.), Samual Zwemer
th
(20
c.)
•CHALLENGE the foundations of Islam (Qur’an, and the
Islamic Traditions), to which most radicals look for authority
in substantiating the actions they carry out
th
–20 c. writings of Sayyid Qutb (theologian for the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt)
–And Abd al-Mawdudi (theologian and inspiration for the
Jamaat i-Islami group in the Indian Subcontinent)
st
1
Problem: We have only one model
•Missiology = ‘church planting’ & conversion alone
(i.e. ‘unless it brings in converts, it isn’t worth our
while’)
•‘eirenic’ models = more converts
•No room for confrontation
•No room for the conflicts between Islam and
Christianity globally
2nd Problem:
We have no ‘Confrontation Theology’
Our Theology is dictated by our experience:
Most Christian contacts with Islam = Arab world (i.e. Palestine & Iraq)
-But Arabs only make up 15% of Muslims (260 m.)
-Most Western research = Arab speaking world
Most of our missiology is written for an Arab environment
50% of Phds. offered in US since 1948 have been on the Palestinian issue (only 2% of
Muslims!)
-Yet, theological and ideological challenges are from the 85% non-Arab speakers (i.e. 800-900
million Asians) [‘Youtube’ = 43,000 attacks vs. 5-6 responses]
-We need a new public method to deal with these more radical and public theological
challenges…
3rd Problem: We have no Models or
Schools
•We don’t teach Christian/Muslim ‘apologetics’
•We don’t teach Christian ‘polemics’
–Nowhere in the UK
–Only limited examples in the US
(i2 and now MBTS)
Compare with UK Muslims:
•Tablighi Jamaat talibes at SC
•43,000 Youtube videos
•books, tracts, tapes, videos and the internet, filled with
vociferous material attacking Christianity, focusing on
the Bible, & JC.
•Our weak and febrile response suggests we either
believe we have no solutions, or are incapable of
defining let alone defending them publicly, or simply
lack the passion to do so; or perhaps all three.
What exactly should we do?
Public Critical analysis of Islam:
-Qur’anic problems
-Manuscript difficulties
-Historical anachronisms
-Scientific peculiarities
-Collation questions
-Grammatical and Linguistic irregularities
-Violent verses
-Question the relevancy of Muhammad as a universal Model
st
-Question the relevancy of Women’s position in the 21 century
-Question the relevancy of the ‘Cultural Mandate’
(a model for all people in all times in all places)
Why should we do it?
• We help eradicate the foundations and authority for the
radical Muslims groups,
• We use a model of ‘tough love’ well suited for our times
• We use verbal and public defense (apologetics)
• We use verbal and public offense (polemics)
most
• We don’t use “weapons of this world” (2 Corinthians 10:3), but
instead, through the use of “arguments, taking captive every
thought and making it obedient to Jesus Christ” (verse 5);
employing the use of one’s mouth, mind, and volition.
Is Public Confrontation Biblical?
-Defence, or apologia against an accuser is mentioned
five times in the New Testament:
(Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Corinthians 9:3;
2 Corinthians 7:11; and 2 Timothy 4:16)
-Twice Christians are asked to defend the gospel
(Philippians 1:7, 16; and 1 Peter 3:15)
Early Christians Supportive of Confrontation:
JESUS:
•Irenic:
–Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus at night (John 3)
•Mild Opposition:
–rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16)
–Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13)
–Pharisee host at a dinner party (Luke 7:36-50)
–Samaritan woman (John 4)
•Confrontation:
–Moneychangers at the temple (Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45)
–Confrontational Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33)
Paul
•Irenic:
–Diaspora Jews: Read Scriptures with them on their territory (Acts 13:1315)
–Areopagus of Athens: Dialogued with the Stoics and Epicureans (Acts
17:22-31)
•Mild Opposition:
–Reasoned with the Greeks, from within their traditions (Acts 17:1-2, 17)
But, did he use confrontation?
Certainly!
Read Acts 17-19
•From Berea, Capadocia, Laodaecia, Ephesus
(Acts 13:46; 17:17; 18:28; 19:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:11;
10:5).
•Went to the Synagogues
•Confronted the Jews there
•Was despised, disregarded, & thrown out…
•Was jailed, beaten, stoned
•And was finally killed!
We must remember that before he was Paul, he
was first Saul, a ‘Shamaite’…on his way to
Damascus to arrest & even KILL Christians!
Then God met him in a dynamic way, and made
him Paul
Yet he retained all his qualities as Saul…his
passion, his intellect, and his knowledge of the
Scriptures!
Samuel 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)
Stephen
Stephen, when challenged by members of the
Synagogue of the Freedmen (i.e., the Jews of Cyrene,
Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia), held his ground and
returned their arguments, so much so, that “they could
not stand up against his wisdom” (Acts 6:9-10), and
finally decided to execute him (Acts 7:57-8:1). One
does not get executed for merely “agreeing to
disagree”!
Philip
Philip was likewise comfortable when confronting the
Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40).
Why do we consider confrontation detrimental to the gospel,
when it was this very model that was used so often by the
earliest believers who gave us the gospel?
Our example in the UK:
We use a confrontational approach, employing both
apologetics and polemics:
-HPCF and Speaker’s Corner (discussions on the
ground, and impromptu debates on the ladder)
-University formal debates with Muslim scholars
-‘Christians Challenging Muslims’ (CCi) equipping
-SWAD research
-i2 material for training
Types of Debate:
University Debates:
–Most common formal style of debate
–Muslim student groups:
•FOSIS/ISOC (UK), or MSA-(US)
–Christian student groups:
(Ayattolah Sayed Fadhel Milani)
•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…much 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 ‘Populist’ model:
•2 Speakers, experts
•30 - 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.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusions:
Many of us with missiological training have been at the
forefront of dialogue with Islam. Few of us, however,
have sought to take the next step and confront its
foundations polemically, perhaps out of fear, or
perhaps due to our methodological restraints. We
have tended to “sit on the sidelines” and watch from a
distance the discussions and debates which have
ensued within secular academic circles.
ONCE WE CAN SEE THE EFFICACY OF APOLOGETICS
AND POLEMICS IN ENGAGING THE MORE RADICAL
MUSLIMS, WE WILL THEN NEED TO GET OUT ‘ONTO
THE STREETS’ AND EMPLOY IT IN OUR MINISTRIES.
THEN WE WILL NEED TO MODEL IT PUBLICLY FOR
OTHERS; AND FINALLY, WE WILL THEN NEED TO SET
UP MODULES IN BOTH BIBLE SCHOOLS AND
SEMINARIES TO TEACH WHAT WE KNOW TO THE NEXT
GENERATION. IT IS THEY WHO MUST BE PREPARED
AND EQUIPPED TO THEN TAKE ON THIS MOST
IMPORTANT TASK IN TO THE FUTURE.
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)