Tough Questions Muslims Ask
Submitted by Visitor on Mon, 2011-11-28 22:26
Tough Questions Muslims Ask
Questions are just that--questions. Questions do not prove anything. Questions simply present an opportunity to work toward an answer. In fact, questions have been at the start of many important discoveries.
However, in the heat of polemic and debate, tough questions seem to score a point. And as the degree of difficulty and the multiplicity of questions increase, so does the apparent effectiveness of the point being made.
Muslims often ask tough questions about the Bible. Some of the questions go way back to the 11th century, when the Spanish Muslim Ibn Hazm searched the Bible for materials which seemed to him to be unworthy of God. Other questions have been supplied to Muslims more recently by western non-Muslim scholars of the Bible.
One of the distinctive features of the "Izhar ul-Haqq," first published in 1864, is that it made use of European "Higher Criticism" of the Bible to support the traditional Muslim accusations that the Bible is corrupt and/or falsified. The European writings used there represent the state of biblical studies up to the middle of the 19th century. Much has changed since. But the idea of using western scholarly materials to support Muslim accusations against the Bible proved so popular that Muslims continue to publish and distribute the "Izhar ul-Haqq" to the present day virtually unchanged.
In the 21st century, Muslim debaters still use whatever they find effective in the "Izhar ul-Haqq," but they also will bring in writings from the "Jesus Seminar," Bart Ehrman, or other sources in an attempt to demonstrate that western non-Muslim scholarship on the Bible agrees with the Muslim accusations.
What is the best way to respond? A Christian refusal to answer tough questions about the Bible is for Muslims an answer in itself--that Christians have no answer! But honestly, how many Christians are sufficiently knowledgeable in textual criticism and other sophisticated areas of Biblical Studies that they could adequately answer all of the tough questions Muslims might ask?
It seems to me that we show greatest respect to questioners by taking their question seriously. We need to show a proper modesty about our intellectual abilities without shirking the question.
In the short term, we can do our best to answer each question according to what we now know. Then we can politely ask for the chance to improve our knowledge of the particular area the question relates to in order to provide a more adequate answer.
I very much appreciate your
I very much appreciate your opening comments about questions. I'm going to keep that in mind in future conversations.
The tension you describe when it comes to an expectation of answering ALL questions reminds me of something Alistair McGrath once said in a lecture. He explained that there is a difference between meeting and block an objection or question. To meet the question is to give a full answer that sorts the whole thing out. To block an objection, on the other hand, is to give an answer that shows a problem is not as important as somebody thought.
Would that kind of approach have "traction" in a conversation with Muslim critics? Might that be one way to take the person's question seriously, yet demonstrate a "proper modesty about our intellectual abilities without shirking the question"?
Thanks J. I like what you
Thanks J. I like what you pass on from McGrath. Yes, I know at least one debater who is skillful in parrying trivial questions so that he has time to offer what is more important.
However, public debates often take on the atmosphere of a game in which Muslim preachers will ridicule Christian debaters if they do not "give a full answer that sorts the whole thing out." Even then some Muslim preachers will not let up. One would hope for a more honest and respectful exchange.
Hi Gordon, Some very
Hi Gordon,
Some very difficult questions. I did a little research on the Song of Solomon question.
Some have proposed the allegorical interpretation, this does not seem faithful to the text of scripture. But why was it placed in the canon of Scripture? In summarizing the placement of it in the Scripture Tremper Longman says, "In summary, there is no doubt that the Song was well situated in the canon as early as we have evidence (2 Esdras, Josephus, Aquila, Melito, Tertullian), though a significant undercurrent of doubt is expressed, especially if "defiled hands" is equated with what we call canonicity and not with the simple recognition of the absence of the Tetragrammaton. Christians, of course, simply followed Jewish acceptance of the book, but the process of its inclusion in a Jewish canon is long lost to us." (Longman, Song of Songs, 2001, pg 58."
This doesn't help us much, since Muslims probably don't care much and aren't convinced by the Christian or Jewish canon.
There are a few other ideas I picked up by looking at various theological dictionaries. The revulsion to anything discussing sex seems to be a Platonic view that the body is bad and the spirit is good. However, we as Christians know that God created both body and spirit and He said that it is good. Sex was introduced in the context of marriage, and the intimacy between a husband and wife is celebrated here.
Tremper Longman continues to be helpful, "In answer to the question, "What is a book like the Song of Songs doing in the canon?" we respond by asking the reader to imagine a Bible without the Song. Without the Song, the Church and synagogue would be left with spare and virtually exclusively negative words about an important aspect of our lives. Sexuality is a major aspect of the human experience, and God in his wisdom has spoken through the poet(s) of the Song to encourage us as well as warn us about its power in our lives.
God is interested in us as whole people. We are not souls encased in a husk of flesh. The Song celebrates the joys of physical touch, the exhilaration of exotic scents, the sweet sound of an intimate voice, the taste of another's body. Furthermore, the book explores human emotion -- the thrill and power of love as well as its often attendant pain. The Song affirms human love, intimate relationship, sensuality, and sexuality." (Longman, 59)
He sees it as a collection of love poetry and should not be seen as a how to book of dating, courtship, marriage and sex.
Also he says, "Read within the context of the canon, the Song has a clear and obvious relevance to the divine-human relationship. After all, throughout the Bible God's relationship to humankind is likened to a marriage. In this metaphor God is the husband and his people are his wife. It is not that God is male or that there are no female images of God in the Bible (see Psalm 31; Proverbs 6-8; Isa. 66:13). In Israelite society the man was the head of the household, and thus, within the marriage metaphor, it is understandable that God is cast within the role of the husband, and humans, both male and female, play the female role." (Longman, 67)
He summarizes his discussion of the theology of the book,
"In summary, then the Song of Songs has a large, but often neglected, contribution to make to the religious community and to society. In the first place, it affirms love, sex, and, if read properly within the context of the canon, marriage. Second, it warns readers that such an intense emotion has its dangers Though the Song's surface meaning is clearly concerned with human sexuality, a canonical reading offers at least two other major avenues of understanding the Song. (1) Human sexuality is part of the story of the creation, fall, and redemption of human relationships. God created marriage (Genesis 2), but that relationship was harmed by sin (Genesis 3). Yet the Song holds out the promise of healing, though complete harmony in relationships awaits the eschaton. (2) Throughout the Bible relationship with God is described by the metaphor of marriage. As with any metaphor, the reader must observe a proper reticence in terms of pressing the analogy. Nonetheless, from the Song, we learn about the emotional intensity, intimacy, and exclusivity of our relationship with the God of the universe" (Longman, 70).
A bit of a long response, but I think Tremper Longman is helpful here. I wonder though if a Muslim would listen to the answer. To talk about a love between man and God in such intimate terms, would might seem to them as blasphemy since Allah is transcendent?
Tremper Longman's comment
Tremper Longman's comment should definitely be helpful. The celebration in Song of Songs is about the delights of love within a marriage relationship. On the marriage metaphor Jeremiah 2 and 3 should be helpful (esp 2:1-3, 32; 33:1, 6, 11). The divorce and the subsequent appeal by Yahweh to return to him are striking themes re. the relationship with God. It is likely Jeremiah drew from Hosea who trades heavily on the marriage metaphor. Carry the image forward to Ezek 16 and 23 and on to the NT (e.g., Eph 5.)
As to the portrait of God, here is a striking difference between Christianity and Islam. The relational component is key; my sense of Islam is that Allah is so transcendent that anything approaching an intimate relationship with Allah is largely foreign.
Another comment. Compare this poetic, very elegant, chaste rendering of how to think of love with modern novels and such (of which I get a whiff now and then) which are so very pposite. There is a difference between sanctifying love and carnal lust!
I have not read the commentary by Richard Hess of Denver Seminary on the Song of Solomon. You might have access to it; I would expect good insights from him.
Last comment: One may think of the NT as having more of an emphasis on the spiritual side of things, though there is plenty there on ethics, too. The OT, when compared to the NT occupies itself with three areas, mostly not touched on in the NT: nations (note Ezek 25-32; Amos 1-2; Jer 46-51; Isa 13-24); economy (cf. the topic of land, e.g., Lev 25, year of Jubilee, and Proverbs), and environment (cf. again topic of land; certain passages in Deut. ; see Habakkuk 2:17 as proof text).
Post new comment