- “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 has noticed about his whole “defence” (and which also prompted this author to write this short commentary) is that even though he openly accused Muslims of being “ignorant” about the matter, he reduced the whole passage of Ezekiel 23 to a link and a summary. Is the missionary acting “prudish” in trying to dismiss the whole issue away so casually ? It certainly seems so to this author.
Content Overview
Ezekiel 23 And Its Problems
Ezekiel 23, with its explicit and sexually charged language, stands as one of the most controversial chapters in the Bible, prompting a significant reevaluation of the appropriateness of certain narratives within sacred texts. This chapter, which allegorically portrays the kingdoms of Israel and Judah through the figures of Oholah and Oholibah engaged in acts of infidelity, has ignited debates over the limits of language and imagery in conveying divine messages. The explicit nature of this chapter raises profound concerns about its place in a text revered by many as holy and divinely inspired.
We wish to settle the matter once and for all by publishing in full the scans from the whole chapter of Ezekiel 23 so that readers may understand the Muslim objection to this passage. Please be advised that we do not recommend anyone who has 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, while 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.
The Qur’anic Approach to Moral Instruction
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.
The Qur’an addresses moral and ethical issues with a focus on dignity, often using metaphorical language that is rich in meaning but avoids explicit or graphic descriptions that could be considered inappropriate. This approach is rooted in the Islamic principle of Ḥayā’ (modesty or shyness) which encompasses not just physical modesty but also extends to speech and conduct. The Qur’an, for example, discusses various sins including those of a sexual nature, but does so in a manner that maintains a respectful and dignified tone, suitable for all audiences, including the young and sensitive.
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 ?
Our Challenge To The Missionary
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 !
Acknowledgements
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.
Leave a Reply