DIALOGUE

1
DIALOGUE DEBATE2006(Jay Smith)
2
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
  1977footnote)
• physically (evidenced by the numerous wars and
  conflicts between Christians and Muslims)
  (Rippin 1998357)

3
Problem lies in their Primary Doctrines

• Norman Daniel
• There are irreducible differences between
  non-negotiable doctrines... The Christian creeds
  and the Quran 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
  1993335-336)

4
Christian Missiologists have posited 3 broad
theological positions

• Exclusivism Stresses the uniqueness of the
  gospel as Gods 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 19873)

5

• Majority of Christians and Muslims
  Inclusivists or Exclusivists
• Thus would use dialogue debate

6
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 2003223)
• too broad

7
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)

8
1st Century, New Testament

• Dialegesthai to think different things,
  ponder on them, and then dispute (May 19901)
• Paul
• Moved from town to town
• Entered Jewish Synagogues
• Confronted their ideas and beliefs
• A two-way flow of ideas
• Acts 172-3, 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)
• Pauls intent was not that his hearers were
  converted, but that they were persuaded (Acts
  174).

9
Zebiris modern definitions

• Dialogue of Life, or the dialogue of presence
  (Zebiri 199737)
• spontaneous dialogue whenever religious
  communities live in proximity to one another
• 2) Spiritual Dialogue shared prayer
  contemplation, devotional reading of each others
  scriptures and spiritual classics, to better
  understand the world-view of the respective
  faiths.
• Dialogue of Needs practical co-operation,
• dialogue on social concerns (Riddell 2004211)
  , 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 199738)

10
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
  ones own faith, but assumes the freedom of a
  person of any faith, including the Christian, to
  be convinced by the faith of another (Riddell
  2004111)
• Inclusive Principles

11
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 ones faith, -implies, the
  other may choose to change their faiths
• 4) to co-operate in areas -social, or secular
  dialogue (Riddell 2004188)

12
(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
  Conversation19891)

13
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 Muslims198023 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 1981126)

14
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
  19929)
• Khurram Murad, there is no point in entering
  into dialogue unless it is Dawah invitation
  (Siddiqui 199476)

15
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 199476)
• Dialogues Leo III vs. Umar II
• John of Damascus (d.749) vs. Saracen (Moffet,
  200239)
• Patriarch Timothy I vs. Caliph Mahdi
• (apologetical, not polemical)
• 9th century, Muslims, were able to surpass
  Christian sophistication (Zebiri 199725)
• Christians outside Muslim rule were more
  polemical, as Muslims were seen as a military
  threat
• Dialogue al-Kindi vs. al-Hashimi Quran the
  prophet Muhammad (Muir 200211 Newman 1993359)

16
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 2004107)
• -Interfaith Movement, but Muslim govt.
  officials, liberals, not religious scholars
  (Siddiqui 199730 Zebiri 199735-36)
• -Secular and Social, irenical
• Evangelicals, 1951 World Evangelical Alliance
  (WEA), 114 church alliances, 700 million
  Christians, in 110 nations (Edwards 2003)
• - discursive dialogues

17
Catholics

• Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
• (PCID) 1964, - irenical approach
• Anglicans
• Building Bridges January 2002, dealing with
  the fallout from the 911 attacks (Riddell
  2004153)
• -Christians organized many dialogues
• -Muslims were slow to follow suit
• -Except Muslim governments, such as Libya,
  Tunisia, and Jordan (Zebiri 199735)
• -Or individual liberal Muslims in the West
  (Zebiri 199736)

18
Rules for Dialogue

• Claude Geffre
• respect the differences in the other
• respect ones own faith, and so
• speak honestly and candidly about them, even if
  it hurts the sensibilities of their counterparts
  (Geffre 1993101-113)

19
Problems with Dialogue

• 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 197713)
• 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.

20
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
  MuslimsChambésy 1977131-132)
• -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
  MuslimsChambésy 1977134)
• 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 MuslimsChambésy
  1977135)
• 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.

21
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
  MuslimsChambésy 1977131-132)
• Invariably Muslims are invited as guests, not
  able to set the agenda, so they feel they have
  little to gain (Zebiri 199736)
• Siddiqui It is an extension of a whole Western
  Christian domination (Sidiqqui 199459)

22
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 2004157)
• 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 2004158)

23
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 dont reach the
  radical Muslims, the ones causing most of the
  problems today.
• So, whats the solution?

24
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 todays 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 2004162) 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.

25

• 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 1989412)

26

• 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 daists 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

27
Muslim Debates

• Historical precedence for debate
• Debate is not new to Islam, for this mode of
  exchange fits within its paradigm of Islams
  perception of the West.
• Lewis speaks to this perception in his book on
  Cultures in Conflict, saying,
• Since Europe has historically been the Islamic
  worlds 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 Europes military and
  cvilizational inferiority, which endured for
  several centuries, references to Europe or
  Christendom in Muslim writings were often
  disdainful (Lewis 199513)

28

• This disdain is echoed in Lewiss 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 1982172-174)

29
Reasons Muslims, today, Debate

• Due to the political and economic dominance of
  Western countries, there is some dignity in
  claiming moral and religious superiority.
• Polemical debates help to reinforce the lines of
  demarcation between Islam and Christianity.
• Debates can be used to convert Christians to
  Islam.
• The Quran provides a model for polemics,
  engaging Christians, Pagans Jews in arguments
  over their beliefs
• (an example often used is that found in Surah
  361, 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)

30
Who Debates?

• Transnational Islamic organizations incorporating
  dawah as their primary aims
• Muslim World League
• World Islamic Call Society
• Islamic Council of Europe (Siddiqui 1994148ff)
• FOSIS in the UK

31
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 199747)
• 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 199747)

32
Dr. Maurice Bucaille

• The Bible, the Quran and Science
• -Scientific Exegesis
• -Most popular in breadth of circulation
• -Employs Eisegesis

33
Current Debaters

• Shabir Ally (Christology of Jesus)
• Abdul Raheem Green (Source Criticism)
• Dr. Zakir Naik (Trinity Science)
• Dr. Jamal Badawi (Quran vs. Bible)

34
Where are the Debates

• University Campuses
• University Unions (Parliamentary style)
• FOSIS (Federation of Students Islamic Societies)
• ISOC (Islamic Societies)
• Christian Unions (Universities and Colleges
  Christian Fellowship UCCF)
• Why?
• They are culturally relevantpassionate 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

35
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 199785)
• Bousset and Loisy 19th and early 20th century
  scholarship concerning St. Pauls Hellenistic
  influences, rather than his Jewish roots (Zebiri
  199785)
• Edward Carpenter Pagan sources
• J.M. Robertson Pagan Christianity (Zebiri
  199786)
• Edward Gibbon Christianitys black history in
  Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Zebiri
  199785)
• 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 199785)

36
Problems with Muslim Debate

• 1) Negative bias both in selection of data to be
  presented and in interpretation of that data
  (Zebiri 199784)
• 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 199785)
• 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 199789)

37
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 199223)
• 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
  196290)

38
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
  1941225)

39

• 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

40

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

41

• 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 dont 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.2112-13), or confronting the
  Pharisees (Matt.2313-33)?

42
Christians Supportive of Debates

• Jesus (against the Pharisees Matt. 2313-33)
• Paul (Mars Hill, Aeropagus, Lecture Hall of
  Tyrannus Acts 19)
• Paul disputed in the synagogues (Acts 1717) in
  the school of one Tyrannus, daily (Acts 199) for
  two years. In Jerusalem he disputed against the
  Grecians until they sought to slay him (Acts
  929)...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 1941225)

43

• 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

44
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

45
Westerners Supportive of Debates

• Maxine Rodinson regrets that any criticism of
  the Prophets moral attitudes are becoming
  increasingly taboo (Rodinson 197959)
• 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 1985159)

46
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 Quran the Word of God?
• 02-97 Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside
  Univ. Bible vs. Quran
• 04-97 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
  Manchester Christ. vs. Isl. Relevancy sin
• 11-97 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
  Waterloo Who is God?
• 02-98 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Birmingham
  Univ. Historicity of the Quran
• 04-98 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Abdul Green South Bank
  Univ. Is the Quran the Word of God?
• 10-99 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri Friends
  Mtg.Hse Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God
• 01-00 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 Scrip
  tures-Jesus-Trinity
• 10-00 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. Quran
• 10-02 Jay Smith vs. Min. Ishmael Muh. Trinity
  Univ., Dublin Oppose Islamic Law?

47
Problems with Debates

1. Fear of Muslims Sensibilities
2. Fear of ones 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.

48
Advantages with Debates

1. Attracts many Muslims
2. Makes a greater impact (i.e. Al-Azhar)
3. Confronts Islam publicly
4. Starts the agenda moving
5. Pre-Evangelistic
6. For many the first time Muslims have heard
   legitimate criticism of the Quran Muh.
7. Muslims tend to initiate them (fits their
   cultural paradigm)
8. Creates a Christian Public Presence

49
Impromptu Speakers Corner Debates
50
(No Transcript)
51
Heckling (Triangulization)
52
Formal Debates
53
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 103-5)