The Evangelization Of The Islamic World

[halconero]

In my mission in Phoenix the issue wasn't if the person was a muslim so much as a muslim from a country where Islam was the state religion and to where they could potentially return. We baptized muslims from italy, a second generation one from the US and a French muslim with no issue. We did, however, teach some from the aforementioned countries that have Islam as the state religion, and for most of them we did have to go through the mission president and clear some hurdles. This was mandated by the First Presidency.

Here in Toronto though, there are Farsi speaking missionaries who baptize muslims all the time...in fact their branch is one of the highest baptizing in the mission.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just find your gotcha question rather silly considering that any Christian attempt to evangelise Muslims will involve teachings Muslims find objectionable or blasphemous.

Precisely. In fact, you've reminded me of an experience I had chatting with a couple of my Muslim colleagues after work one evening. One of them started giving me a list of all the things he found doctrinally offensive in Christianity and was then dumbfounded when I pointed out to him that I didn't actually hold any of the Protestant/Catholic beliefs he'd enumerated. (Of course, as we talked on, I did share with him beliefs to which he then objected, such as mankind being literal children of God -- which to Him merely compounded the blasphemy of God having a Son.)

Edited November 21, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Mudcat]

I am not LDS, so take it with a grain of salt. But.......

I have heard it from a completely incredulous and utterly untrustworthy source, that The CoJCoLDS had a special team of missionaries that it deployed to countries that were hostile to Christ... like those that were predominantly Islamic.

Apparently, according to my source, there was only one prerequisite to such an assignment.

On further inquiry of said source (henceforth known as "Sheep Throat"), it was revealed to me that the singular prerequisite was that "Danger" had to literally be the candidates middle name.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Mudcat

[harfad]

I am not LDS, so take it with a grain of salt. But.......

I have heard it from a completely incredulous and utterly untrustworthy source, that The CoJCoLDS had a special team of missionaries that it deployed to countries that were hostile to Christ... like those that were predominantly Islamic.

Apparently, according to my source, there was only one prerequisite to such an assignment.

On further inquiry of said source (henceforth known as "Sheep Throat"), it was revealed to me that the singular prerequisite was that "Danger" had to literally be the candidates middle name.

I don't accept that Muslims are hostile to Christ. They revere him as a great prophet (which is what the Bible says he was). I don't see how that is being hostile to Christ. The rest of what you said does not resonate with me as a Mormon either.

Edited November 21, 2012 by harfad

[Calm]

He was making a joke...which resonates with me as LDS.

[Mudcat]

I don't accept that Muslims are hostile to Christ. They revere him as a great prophet (which is what the Bible says he was). I don't see how that is being hostile to Christ. The rest of what you said dies not resonate with me as a Mormon either.

I would argue that Bible said he was the Son of God and that he was God. Muslims don't believe God has a Son, they don't believe Christ is God. They can revere him all they want as a prophet but they deny his crucifixion and his deity. They are hostile to the notion.

If you don't think Muslims are hostile Christ, I think you are kidding yourself.

[harfad]

They revere him in the way that they are able to understand him, or in the way that their culture and religious tradition enables them to understand him. Jesus himself referred to himself as a prophet. I don't see how somebody calling Jesus a prophet is being hostile to him.

[Mudcat]

They revere him in the way that they are able to understand him, or in the way that their culture and religious tradition enables them to understand him. Jesus himself referred to himself as a prophet. I don't see how somebody calling Jesus a prophet is being hostile to him.

Suit yourself.

[volgadon]

Suit yourself.

It is getting harder and harder to take him seriously.

[Mudcat]

It is getting harder and harder to take him seriously.

I don't know about that Volgadon.

I imagine he is taking himself seriously enough to accommodate us all;)

We just need to figure out a way to redistribute it. I propose a seriousness tax.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Mudcat

[Flyonthewall]

I don't know about that Volgadon.

I imagine he is taking himself seriously enough to accommodate us all;)

We just need to figure out a way to redistribute it. I propose a seriousness tax.

Are you serious?

[volgadon]

I don't know about that Volgadon.

I imagine he is taking himself seriously enough to accommodate us all;)

We just need to figure out a way to redistribute it. I propose a seriousness tax.

A seriousness tax, brilliant idea. I think there should be a sliding scale going from knock-knock jokes to dry, sophisticated humour.

[Mudcat]

A seriousness tax, brilliant idea. I think there should be a sliding scale going from knock-knock jokes to dry, sophisticated humour.

I like the way you think Comrade.

[rongo]

Joining this thread in progress; too much already here to respond to all things I'd like to.

I was in the Germany Hamburg Mission (1994-1996), and we were not allowed to teach Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, or Israelis (the latter because of the Church's agreement in order to build the Jerusalem Center). Even if they approached us and begged us to teach them. The wisdom of this lies in the fact that the 9-11 cell was based out of Hamburg, and I met some Muslim men who were (perhaps still are) terrorists. One convert I built a good relationship with was the third in command in Kurdistan who was carefully staying alive in Germany. As an Iraqi, he should not have been baptized, but the sisters who taught him misunderstood and told the mission president he was from Afghanistan (probably on the do-not-teach list today). He was a solid convert, and his very good German helped him to integrate into the ward much more than other foreign converts. He used the word "terrorist" to describe a very scary young man ---- we were visiting him, and someone buzzed to be let up. He buzzed him in, and began putting his scriptures and LDS pictures away. He told us that his visitor is "what you would call a terrorist ---- he can never learn that I became a Christian." We wanted to get out of there, but he told us that we could be seen talking to him ---- we were just American students, not missionaries. This Omar had the scariest eyes and countenance. He tolerated his contact in order not to rock the boat, and we saw Omar around frequently (this convert and we and Omar lived near the chapel in Braunschweig, a city of ca. 300,000).

In Halberstadt, an East German town of ca. 40,000, a white man with blue eyes, red hair, and freckles talked to me in English at the train station. He said he was an Iraqi Christian in Germany as a religious refugee, and when he asked me for a Book of Mormon, I couldn't give him one. He told me he could have a hundred people at church on Sunday, which would not have been a good thing psychologically or logistically for the branch. He also told me that Christianity had been brought to that area by Thomas the Apostle, which I have heard from other sources (Foxe's Book of Martyrs has Thomas dying in India).

The only Muslim convert I worked with was this Kurdish man, but we had a lot of media referrals from really sharp Pakistani graduate students (usually in the sciences). They would order a Book of Mormon in Urdu, and we would deliver it and have really good discussions. I learned a lot about the Koran from them, and they were fascinated that we were a Christian sect that rejected the Trinity (which they really liked). I can easily see the gospel exploding in Muslim countries when God brings about cultural changes that make it so missionaries and fledgling branches can survive.

There was also a Turkish businessman who paid tithing in the Braunschweig Ward about once a year when he was in town on business. His wife and children had no idea he had been baptized (he was baptized while on a business trip), and he was a really sharp man with a strong testimony. Good English and German, too.

[rongo]

II should add that it was fun to tease the Kurdish convert about Kurdistan. "I can't find it on any maps!" I would say, and his head would explode. They are fiercely independent and want to have their own country, but both Iraq and Turkey want it (lots of oil reserves, etc.).

I believe that Abraham was a Kurd, and that Ur of the Chaldees was in northern Iraq. "Kurd" would have been pronounced "Kuld" back then --- hence, Ur of the Kuldees. Nibley was a big propenent of a northern rather than southern Ur.

[theplains]

They revere him as a great prophet (which is what the Bible says he was).

Based on what the Quran teaches, they reject the belief that he is the Savior of the world through the atonement.

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor

crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have

no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself.

Allah was ever Mighty, Wise" (sura 4:156-157).

Regards,

Jim

[harfad]

Based on what the Quran teaches, they reject the belief that he is the Savior of the world through the atonement.

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor

crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have

no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself.

Allah was ever Mighty, Wise" (sura 4:156-157).

Regards,

Jim

They still revere him as a prophet, which the Bible says he also was. I don't call that being hostile to him.

[Nathair/|\]

We should ask Dr. Peterson. He knows more about this than anyone.

[Mudcat]

They still revere him as a prophet, which the Bible says he also was. I don't call that being hostile to him.

Bold mine. To borrow from a movie line I like. "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If the Isalmic world thinks Jesus is a prophet, then what example of reverence do they offer his teachings that would lead one to believe they were hospitable to them?

Turn the other cheek?

Love your enemies?

Take up your cross and follow me?

I am the way the truth and the light..?

Thou shalt not kill?

I could go on, but harfad I really think you ought to rethink your view on this. I don't see any support for what you are saying. But.....

I am at least open to an explanation of your thinking. If the Islamic world isn't adhering to the teachings of one of their prophets, how are they revering that prophet?

[Nathair/|\]

Bold mine. To borrow from a movie line I like. "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If the Isalmic world thinks Jesus is a prophet, then what example of reverence do they offer his teachings that would lead one to believe they were hospitable to them?

Turn the other cheek?

Love your enemies?

Take up your cross and follow me?

I am the way the truth and the light..?

Thou shalt not kill?

I could go on, but harfad I really think you ought to rethink your view on this. I don't see any support for what you are saying. But.....

I am at least open to an explanation of your thinking. If the Islamic world isn't adhering to the teachings of one of their prophets, how are they revering that prophet?

Unfortunately, I've only known one Muslim who wasn't incarcerated, but he was a good and honorable person and would embrace the first two and the last of your principles. He would likely say that the other two are the result of later writers mythologizing Jesus and that Jesus Himself never claimed to be the Lord. What little I do know of Islamic history suggests that 90% of Muslims would take similar positions. The Muslims and the Irish preserved the knowledge that led to the Renaissance and the modern age.

[harfad]

Bold mine. To borrow from a movie line I like. "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If the Isalmic world thinks Jesus is a prophet, then what example of reverence do they offer his teachings that would lead one to believe they were hospitable to them?

Turn the other cheek?

Love your enemies?

Take up your cross and follow me?

I am the way the truth and the light..?

Thou shalt not kill?

I could go on, but harfad I really think you ought to rethink your view on this. I don't see any support for what you are saying. But.....

I am at least open to an explanation of your thinking. If the Islamic world isn't adhering to the teachings of one of their prophets, how are they revering that prophet?

Muslims do not obtain their theology from the Bible. They believe that the Bible has been altered in such a way that it is not a reliable source for obtaining correct theology from. Their primary source of theology is the Qur'an; and there is nothing in the Qur'an which justifies violence or terrorism (which is what your question is implying). Qur'an's moral teachings is closer to the Old Testament than the New. If you are going to find fault with that you have to find a way of reconciling that with your acceptance of the OT.

[canard78]

Bold mine. To borrow from a movie line I like. "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If the Isalmic world thinks Jesus is a prophet, then what example of reverence do they offer his teachings that would lead one to believe they were hospitable to them?

Turn the other cheek?

Love your enemies?

Take up your cross and follow me?

I am the way the truth and the light..?

Thou shalt not kill?

I could go on, but harfad I really think you ought to rethink your view on this. I don't see any support for what you are saying. But.....

I am at least open to an explanation of your thinking. If the Islamic world isn't adhering to the teachings of one of their prophets, how are they revering that prophet?

Hi Mudcat. I think these are all reasonable questions and I've asked myself similar things in the past but never thought to look into it. When I served in France we used to chat informally with some muslim young adults and they would often say "we revere Jesus, he was a prophet. Your book just misrepresents him."

Essentially, (in my limited understanding based on half an hour of reading their own version of their doctrine rather than hearsay) they think the New Testament is the inaccurate account of his life and instead accept the Koran version. They believe some of his disciples re-wrote or twisted some of his words and the events of his resurrection to support their new sect.

So essentially, they can embrace Jesus as God's messenger (and have many parallel beliefs about him to us, including a belief in the virgin birth and in his second coming). They see him as one who performed miracles on behalf of God, but don't accept him to be God Himself (being monotheistic).

I found this article very illuminating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Jesus is described by various means in the Quran. The most common reference to Jesus occurs in the form of "Ibn Maryam" (son of Mary), sometimes preceded with another title. Jesus is also recognised as a prophet (nabī) and messenger (rasūl) of God. The termswadjih ("worthy of esteem in this world and the next"), mubārak ("blessed", or "a source of benefit for others"), `abd-Allāh (servant of God) are all used in the Quran in reference to Jesus

Islamic texts categorically deny the idea of crucifixion or death attributed to Jesus by the Bible. The Quran states that people (i.e., the Jews and Romans) sought to kill Jesus, but they did not crucify nor kill him, although "this was made to appear to them." Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but instead, he was raised up by God unto the heavens. This "raising" is often understood to mean through bodily ascension, although, according to the Quran, God raised him "unto himself" rather than "the heavens" after rescuing him from an accursed death on the cross, which suggests a raising of status as a true prophet and Messiah by the protection of the omnipresent God, when many were in doubt of his truthfulness. Similar to the raising of the prophet Idris (Enoch) in the 19th chapter of the Quran.

Muslims believe that God revealed to Jesus a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel), while also declaring the truth of the previous revelations – the Tawrat (Torah) and the Zabur (Psalms). The Quran speaks favorably of the Injīl, which it describes as a scripture that fills the hearts of its followers with meekness and piety. The Quran says that the original biblical message has been distorted or corrupted (tahrif) over time, from what was originally revealed to the messengers. In chapter 3, verse 3, and chapter 5, verses 46-47, of the Quran, the revelation of the Injil is mentioned.

Remember, they don't have to accept the New Testament account of his life to still celebrate his God-given mission as they read it in their own scripture.

P.S. - great quote by the way, love that movie... but don't forget, it was said by a drunk spaniard

[volgadon]

Muslims do not obtain their theology from the Bible. They believe that the Bible has been altered in such a way that it is not a reliable source for obtaining correct theology from. Their primary source of theology is the Qur'an; and there is nothing in the Qur'an which justifies violence or terrorism (which is what your question is implying). Qur'an's moral teachings is closer to the Old Testament than the New. If you are going to find fault with that you have to find a way of reconciling that with your acceptance of the OT.

Nonsense. Of course there is, just as there are passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon and D&C which justify violence.

[Mudcat]

Muslims do not obtain their theology from the Bible. They believe that the Bible has been altered in such a way that it is not a reliable source for obtaining correct theology from. Their primary source of theology is the Qur'an; and there is nothing in the Qur'an which justifies violence or terrorism (which is what your question is implying). Qur'an's moral teachings is closer to the Old Testament than the New. If you are going to find fault with that you have to find a way of reconciling that with your acceptance of the OT.

I disagree and think the Qur'an encourages violence. I don't see how you can see it otherwise. The OT violence is historically locked.. (Joshua had is battles, but they are over.. etc.).. those events have transpired. Not so for the Qu'rans and it's notions of jihad.

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

This passage encourages violence and put's the peaceful Islamist, like Nathair's example, at odds with their teachings.

Some others you might be interested in

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Sounds real non violent doesn't it

................

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Really nice feelings towards Christians and Jews here.

......................

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Harmonious treatment of others here.

.............................

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

I am guessing that has been misinterpreted over the years.. probably has legitimate allegorical meaning like "give them a neck massage and manicure".

Seriously, I don't know how you can say what you say.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Mudcat

[harfad]

There is a difference between fighting a just war, and fighting a war as an aggressor. Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible advocate fighting a war as an aggressor; but they do advocate fighting a just war. What you are doing is justifying the the actions of Islamic extremists on their own terms, which means that you are basically joining their ranks. Anybody can interpret the Bible or the Qur'an in ways to justify their own unrighteous acts, and many do. The Crusaders in the Middle Ages who invaded Islamic lands and committed terrible crimes against innocent, peace loving Muslims who were far better than themselves in moral values, and in culture and refinement did so on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible. The truth is that all religions have had, and continue to have their own minority groups of extremists and fanatics who have interpreted their scripture texts in ways to justify their actions. Unfortunately it is the minority extremists who most often get the headlines. Islam as a whole is not hostile to Christianity or to Christ, and never has been. But I see many evangelical Christians expressing hatred towards Muslims and Islam. I would consider them to be the modern equivalents of Christisn fanatics and extremists. They see things in black and white, and interpret the Bible inappropriately to justify their attitudes and behaviors. I see no difference between them in spirit and the Islamic fanatics and extremists who do the same with the Qur'an. They may appear to be poles apart, but in reality they drink from the same source.