“Does the Bible use language not fitting for God?”
This was the question that a missionary rhetorically posed to his readers in an amusing but vain attempt to “defend” the inappropriate and unnatural language of Ezekiel 23. The funny thing that this author have noticed about his whole “defense” (and which also prompted this author to write this short commentary) is that even though he openly accuse Muslims of being “ignorant” about the matter, he reduced the whole passage of Ezekiel 23 to a link and a short summary. Is the missionary acting “prudish” in trying to dismiss the whole issue away so casually? It certainly seems so to this author.
Ezekiel 23 And Its Problems
We wish to settle the matter once and for all by publishing in full the scans from the whole chapter of Ezekiel 23 so as readers may understand the Muslim objection to this passage. Please be advised that we do not recommend anyone who have not yet reached the age of puberty to read this disgusting and sordid passage.
The missionary has also made the accusation that:
“[i]t is only ignorance of the inspired scriptures that results in such outragious [sic] claim.”
On the contrary, we object to the passage not because of its main message, but because of its erotic imagery and inappropriate language. Furthermore, it is described as a historical event and the reader would unconsciously form imagery which is unworthy of being attributed to God Almighty. We would like to ask the reader: would it be appropriate for a parent to rent a pornographic video and show it to his children below 8 years old, and all the time saying, “Do not commit fornication, it is an evil and a sin to do so”? Would anyone in their right mind do such a thing? This is what the missionary ignorantly expects us to believe.
Missionary Objections And The Response
He also expects us to swallow the idea that the so-called “strong imagery” of the following verse of the Qur’an is as objectionable as the erotic passage of Ezekiel 23:
“And do not spy, neither backbite one another; would any of you like to eat the flesh of his brother dead?” (Qur’an, 49:12)
The Qur’an in this verse does not give a detailed imagery of how one eats the flesh of another. Rather, it simply analogises backbiting to the act of cannibalism. It does not contain any objectionable language, it does not describe how cannibalism is attempted in detail and most certainly it does not emit erotic imagery not befitting of God Almighty.
In conclusion, the Muslim objection to Ezekiel 23 is a valid one. The Christian missionary should explain to his readers what benefit does the language of Ezekiel 23 offer, apart from inciting its readers to submit to their erotic feelings to commit rape and fornication?
It is also amusing that the missionary decided to quote the Prophet(P) and then “conveniently” disparage the late Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, the doyen of Muslim responses to Christian missionary attacks, of blasphemy. Our response to his allegation is that we challenge this missionary to educate his own children on the evils of fornication by asking them to act out the event live in a play or school drama, word for word as per recorded in Ezekiel 23. I would be most happy to lend a hand in writing out such a script and will allow to let his own children to be the principal actors in such a play or school drama for Sunday school. Certainly, this is not an “outrageous” demand if the missionary himself does not consider this to be “blasphemy” or find any problems with the text of Ezekiel 23. This challenge is also open to his fellow missionaries.
Until the missionary or his cohorts have the courage to meet our above challenge, we as Muslims will continue to criticise the inappropriate and steamy language of Ezekiel 23, and object to its unnatural imagery. Such a passage is most certainly not “inspired” from God Almighty. And only God knows best!
The author would like to take this opportunity to thank Brother Shah Kirit bin Kakulal Govinji for his input on the Christian missionary response to the Muslim criticism of Ezekiel 23.