New Church Pamphlet on Islam

[katherine the great]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, but the law is still on the books. Christians have similar incidents in their history.

I can see being annoyed at any faith that kills apostates now but if you want a general faith that has never killed apostates that is much harder to find.

Did you read Rongo’s post? Do you think that was just hyperbole? I don’t. I personally don’t care so much about what is on the books, I care about what people are doing in the present. 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Did you read Rongo’s post? Do you think that was just hyperbole? I don’t. I personally don’t care so much about what is on the books, I care about what people are doing in the present. 

Rongo is describing a personal account 30 years ago. It doesn’t have to be hyperbole to not match the litmus test of things happening in the present. Halconero’s post is more of the present and shows a variation in practices based on country….which in and of itself indicates that this isn’t a universal practice or interpretation. I found an article that surveyed ex-muslims in N. American about their experiences leading up and including openly leaving: 

https://religionnews.com/2021/07/07/exmna-the-cost-of-leaving-islam-for-american-muslims/
 

Though it indicates there is still a problem with intolerance towards those leaving Islam (by likely those particularly who are non-converts based on some of the responses) it also points that there’s no universal response that will happen due to leaving. 
 

Quote

Just about 1 in 5 ex-Muslims said that they were kicked out of their home once they renounced Islam and about 1 in 7 reported that they were physically abused.

I’m assuming death threats would be an extreme orientation of those physically abused. The cases I read were usually public people who had a platform of some sort. It should be apparent that public figures often garner more extreme responses to something deemed offensive or controversial by parts of society. 
 

I’m still not saying this isn’t a problem…it is and likely will continue to evolve abd shift when the underlying factors am that tend to fuel intolerance are addressed. but no faith and/or large group of people currently have clean hands on issues of sexism, intolerance, or violence. Buddhists, hindus, and atheists in Asia have all recently repressed rights, promoted violence, and practiced cultural genocide against Muslims. Israeli Jews play a part in tensions with Palestinians and apparently have led to a reduction in Israeli Christian populations via harassment. There are parts of of africa that have Christians that maintain local beliefs about witchcraft only with a Christian flare and therefore practice often traumatic/quasi-torturous exorcisms on people, including children. Nearer home there are rising concerns of Christian nationalism and domestic extremists that have hailed or incorporate Christian ideology into their violent rhetoric. And that’s before you get to sexism. 
 

intolerance, ignorance, violence, and tribalism is a human feature. It’s not somehow unique to simply one group of people. I’m concerned that labeling a group by their problems doesn’t actually address this, but continues some of the problems in a different brand of justified intolerance and tribalism. I see this in my father who’s country was torn by corruption that goaded religious/ethnic tensions. He holds anger and intolerance to muslims. He feels justified in it and can likely point to several reasons to be so. Of course I’m sure if I asked an equally angry Muslim from his home country, they would likely have their own list of justifications too.

 

 

I could say more, but I need to get going with the day. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Danzo]

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I'm all for building bridges and finding commonalities, but I also remember that not many years ago Christians and Muslims were living peacefully side by side and attending each others weddings and funerals in Bosnia, and in a blink of an eye began burning and killing each other . Some connections are only skin deep and very fragile. 

I served my mission in Italy during the Yugoslavian breakup  (Italy is next door)  I met (and taught)many Bosnians Muslims as well as Albanian Muslims,  we also taught Serbian Christians as well.  I don't recall any of the Muslims actually knowing anything about what Muslims actually believed. None had read the Koran, they really didn't know anything about the religion other than that they weren't Christians.  Most of the "Muslims"  from the region I encountered didn't even believe in God.  From what I was able to gather from conversations  with them is that the conflict was completely tribal, I could not see were religious beliefs played a part.  As far as I could tell, they were settling old scores and continuing a feud that began when the ottomans invaded Centuries earlier and some fought with them and some fought against them.

It was sad over all.  I encountered children who had bullet wounds from snipers and people who had lost everything.  Interestingly enough, they got along well in Italy, with Bosnians and Serbs attending the same branch of the church.  They told me, if they were to return, they would have to pick a side because the only thing worse than picking a side was not picking a side and having everyone shoot at you. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Danzo

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm not sure if this question was directed at me, but I'm not sure, leaning towards no. I'm not particularly sure how that's relevant though with regards to recognizing the diversity of Islamic faith traditions or understanding the principles that govern each.

It was an open question. I just wonder did Muhammad not supposedly get his Revelations from Gabriel? I am questioning the legitimacy of the religion. I always thought that it was a copycat religion intended by Satan to draw people away from Christianity. They do not believe Christ died for their sins. Although I could be mistaken on this point this is why I asked.

I am certain there are good members in the religion and my question in no way reflects on them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I just wonder did Muhammad not supposedly get his Revelations from Gabriel? I am questioning the legitimacy of the religion. I always thought that it was a copycat religion intended by Satan to draw people away from Christianity.

From a 1978 First Presidency statement: 'The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed ... received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals'.

[why me]

On 2/1/2022 at 5:49 PM, The Nehor said:

No, but the law is still on the books. Christians have similar incidents in their history.

I can see being annoyed at any faith that kills apostates now but if you want a general faith that has never killed apostates that is much harder to find.

Thus, we had the enlightenment. Eventually, Christianity went through some reforms and renewed interpretations. It progressed. There are Muslim feminists who are struggling for women's rights in Islam. But certain communities, especially in the west are resisting. Prearranged marriage is still considered to be fine within many Muslim communities in the west. There are many Muslims in the west who still put girls in Hijabs to prepare them for puberty. But their brothers are in shorts and short sleeve shirts in summer. I don't think that the situation has approved since this video was made. ZDF is a public German TV station with a good reputation.

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by why me

[halconero]

20 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It was an open question. I just wonder did Muhammad not supposedly get his Revelations from Gabriel? I am questioning the legitimacy of the religion. I always thought that it was a copycat religion intended by Satan to draw people away from Christianity.

There are two realities here:

1) The hadiths claim Muhammad saw Gabriel.

2) The First Presidency has stated that Muhammad received a portion of God's light.

There's a lot of space between those statements that allows me to reconcile them with each other, but not with the statement that Satan is its author. We also believe the Reformers were inspired, yet Lutheran theology and particularly Calvinism is further from Latter-day Saint beliefs than Orthodoxy or Catholicism are. May I offer a few suggestions that sit in-between Islam being the one truth faith and it being an invention of Satan?

1) Muhammad did see Gabriel, but was not a prophet.

John Taylor once said this in relation to revelation and the visitation of angels during times of apostasy:

"Men of God in different ages have been in possession of certain philosophical truth in relation to God, the heavens, the past, the present and the future. This has been the case not only with men of God on the Asiatic continent; but also on this continent...There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness, and deliver me from the light and intelligence that prevail in our day; for as a rational, intelligent, immortal being who has to do with time and eternity, I consider it one of the greatest acquirements for men to become acquainted with their God and with their future destiny."

Perhaps Muhammad did see the angel Gabriel, and received a limited mission to end idolatry on the Arabian peninsula and establish the worship of one God. I don't know, but I don't think that puts him on the level of Moses, Peter, or Joseph Smith in terms of being a prophet. Neither do I think Latter-day Saint doctrines limit the ministering of angels to us alone.

2) Muhammad did not see Gabriel, but was nonetheless inspired.

The visit of Gabriel to Muhammad is recorded in the hadiths, not in the Quran. The hadiths are extremely important, but they are not at the level of the Quran, and are the result of oral traditions that post-date Muhammad. It is entirely possible that Muhammad received the inspiration of God to turn his people towards monotheism (Abrahamic religions, including Judaism and Christianity, but *also* other monotheistic traditions related to Adam, Seth, and Abraham were prevalent on the peninsula, in addition to indigenous pagan worship), without the visitation of Gabriel, and that later followers attributed a visitation to him. We of all people should understand that narrative given what we believe regarding the translation of the Bible, and we should extend grace to Muslims for it just as we extend grace to the followers of Catholicism, Luther, or Calvin. Complete? No. Mistaken in some ways? Yes. Satanic? In so far as misinterpretations of scripture or doctrine are Satanic, sure. But I tend to think human fallibility is distinct from Satanic. I genuinely believe that, when a "first best" is not possible, God will still work with and inspire people to accomplish a second best. This might be the case here, and later tradition attributed visitations to him that he did not claim nor experienced.

20 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They do not believe Christ died for their sins. Although I could be mistaken on this point this is why I asked.

You are both right and wrong. As I said in one of my earlier posts, it is perhaps better to understand Islam as a collection of Islams.

On the first point - Christ's death. The popular belief is that Jesus did not die. He is the sinless Messiah, the son of the Virgin Mary, and the Word of God, but he was substituted on the cross and lifted up into heaven. That, or he was taken from the cross under darkness and treated for three days and nights by saint-physician Necdemus (this one is popular among Ahmadis). It is not, however, a universal belief, nor is it one demanded by the popular canon itself. The Quran is silent on the issue, with Professor Mahmoud M. Ayoub noting that "The Quran, as we have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ the Messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts." In fact, the earliest hadiths say that Jesus *did* die on the cross, while the later ones say he did *not*. The point of Jesus' death or substitution was debated by scholars in Medieval Persia, Arabia, and Iraq, and is debated today, many of this scholars holding otherwise mainstream views.

There are also mainstream branches of Islam that do accept the crucifixion of Jesus, the main two being Ismailis and many Sufis. They're certainly not the majority, but Ismailis and Sufis may be compared in size (not theology) to Methodists or Presbyterians. They are also more or less accepted as 'normal' within the spectrum of Islam (unlike Ahmadis, who are treated more like Latter-day Saints in their relation to Islam - new and maybe no Muslims, though they claim to be).

On the second point - Jesus' intercession. The concept of intercession, called "Shafa'a," does exist within Islam. I won't get into it all here, but put succinctly, Jesus can intercede for some wrong-doers and rescue them from hell, or promote some people into heaven. Notably, Shafa'a belongs only to God. That might sound contradictory, but simply put, it means God allows Jesus (and some other prophets) to make intercession. Wahhabis believe that only God can be asked for Shafa'a. Most Muslims believe that Jesus did not have to die to make intercession.

Edit: I also don't want to understate the difference here. The intercession of Jesus among certain Muslim groups *is* distinct from intercession within Latter-day Saint beliefs and other Christian doctrines. It is distinct from the Atonement, which grants Christ the ability to stand as proxy for us, heal us, and forgive us. The intercession of Jesus in Islam does not result from his death or substitution on the cross, but rather, is something permitted by God as a judge would permit a lawyer to make a case for their client.

20 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I am certain there are good members in the religion and my question in no way reflects on them.

I believe you and take you at your word. The only thing I'd add here is that I'm somewhat biased on this topic as I grew up 10 minutes away from a polygamist breakaway. The merits of polygamy as practiced pre-manifesto aside, this group certainly practiced it in a way that was reprehensible, wrong, and abusive. Yet, their laws were based on our laws. They shared the same texts as us, and most of the same prophets. They believed in the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, and most of D&C. Yet, we had totally different directions in doctrine and life.

The point I'm trying to make is that Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, and indeed, our own faith, all contain writings, words, and practices which, taken by some, can turn into something reprehensible. There are "Islams" out there that interpret Sharia, the Quran, Hadiths, and others in the most banal way possible. Others, like Wahabis, treat them abhorrently. I personally take the view that these radically different interpretations are the result of institutions, as posited by Acemoglu (seriously, read "Why Nations Fail" for a backgrounder). These institutions can promote vicious or virtuous cycles of belief and practice from the *same* text. You can have, on the one hand, the enlightened Caliphates of Baghdad and Cordoba. Or, you can have the self-proclaimed Caliphate of Mosul under al-Baghdadi. When you the study the institutions that resulted in all these outcomes, it's a bit easier to see how the social, political, geographical, historical, and yes, spiritual circumstances can result in different outcomes.

Edited February 3, 2022 by halconero

[rodheadlee]

Thanks for your explanation. I evolved my ideas before I came to be familiar with the Church and get baptized. Iran taking our hostages as well as the Munich Olympics attack helped form my opinion. 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by rodheadlee

[halconero]

26 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Thanks for your explanation. I evolved my ideas before I came to be familiar with the Church and get baptized. Iran taking our hostages as well as the Munich Olympics attack helped form my opinion. 

That's fair. I come from a Jewish-Zionist background, and identify as Jewish (even though I'm a Latter-day Saint), so I share the same hesitations around jihadism and the theology behind it.

As I've studied it, I've come to believe religion tends to be an interaction effect, rather than a main effect. These are statistical terms where a main effect is something that directly causes something else. An interaction effect is something that *can* cause something else, but only in the presence of another factor. Here is the classic of an interaction effect:

"Given the specifics of the example, an interaction effect would not be surprising. If someone asks you, 'Do you prefer ketchup or chocolate sauce on your food?' Undoubtedly, you will respond, 'It depends on the type of food!' That’s the 'it depends' nature of an interaction effect. You cannot answer the question without knowing more information about the other variable in the interaction term—which is the type of food in our example!"

In a mathematical construct, it looks something like this:

Islam as a main driver of violence:        Violence = Islam + Other Factors <- where other factors can contribute to violence, but don't need to be present to drive violence.

Islam as an interaction with factors that produce violence: Violence = Islam*OtherFactors <- where both Islam AND other factors need to both be present to produce violence. In this second model, which is the one I ascribe to, those factors include institutional domestic political failure, geopolitical tensions, economic depravation, and class segregations (+ individual eccentricities, I'm not a marxist that dumbs everything down to class).

I think Islam can interact with other conditions to create violence. I'm less convinced it has an independent effect on violence. You can take two Iranians, say my colleague Ali and another random individual. Both go to mosque, both pray x5 daily. Both keep halal. Both read the same Quran. Is it Islam that determines whether they take some hostages? Perhaps, but how does that explain Ali, who is a boring, overweight university professor whose favourite hobby is reading poetry? Individual agency plays some role here, but it also helps that Ali's family comes from a liberalizing tradition back to Mohammad Mosaddegh.