A Sabbath invitation to Islamo-apologists in BYU's religion department

[oxcoug]

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

It just seems like Mormons should understand more than members of any other religion that a religion isn't necessarily defined by everything its founder did.

And yes, Muhammad was a terrible person: I think most historians consider him a liar and a mass murderer. And centuries of much of the Islamic world living in illiteracy, ignorance and abject poverty haven't helped bring Islam far enough away from its roots.

But this is the exact opposite of the reality with Islam - it's is deeply, tangibly defined both by its founder and its founding text. Right down to the sickening fact that the legal age of marriage for a girl in Iran is 9 years old because..... the "Prophet" married a 9-year old.

[oxcoug]

Certainly the OT is full of examples, but Christians have the fact that the NT is absent of any of it and the entire law of the OT has been done away with. Big difference

1. Nowhere in the Bible does one find blanket justification for aggression against the 'unbeliever', only against a few specific groups. Phrases like 'Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush' don't show up in the Bible. Nor is there anything that approximates this: 'O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.' Never does the Bible say 'kill people and hate them' MERELY because they don't 'believe.' It's all over the Koran. Echoes of it are in pretty much every Surah.

2. Nowhere in the Bible does one find specific justification for violence against groups that are around today. The Koran specifically endorses enmity toward Christians and Jews (as does the life of Mohammad), which gives a dangerous relevance for all of these kids getting Islamic educations (i.e. taught to memorize sections of the Koran) by the millions at Madrassahs.

3. Instances of allegedly divinely approved violence in the Bible are isolated- there are several, but they don't represent a consistent theme. In the Koran, it is a recurring theme that runs throughout.

4. Believers in the Bible have an out in that we believe that portions of the Bible have been distorted by human interest (it is even suggested in our Articles of Faith). We can elect to think 'hmmm... those passages with Joshua are a little bit weird- maybe they are the product, at least partially, of some later tampering by Israelite nationalists.' No believer in the Koran can do that without being a heretic- the book proclaims its perfection, Mohammad repeated that claim many times, and it's a basic tenet of Islam that the book is whole, perfect, complete without any flaw.

5. Following from the last- the Bible is the work of dozens of authors, interpreters and translators over centuries and it is easy to understand, therefore, that it can be imperfect. The Koran all hangs on one man- who claims to be God's greatest prophet and who will permit no questions about the divine origins of his text. If you are a believing Muslim then you must accept this. Otherwise you are a heretic (this per one of my tutors in the UK, outstanding man and lover and scholar of Islam, Ron Nettler).

6. So what it comes down to is this- to act violently against unbelievers in the name of Christian belief is to absurdly misunderstand/distort the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and even the real meaning of the Hebrew Bible. To act violently against unbelievers in the name of Muslim belief is in perfect alignment both with the Koran and with the life and example of Mohammad.

[RobinFinderson]

oxcoug, you are like CUF's own Terry Jones. Thank you for taking the time to read the Koran and conduct your own trial of its content and origins.

[creekster]

oxcoug, you are like CUF's own Terry Jones. Thank you for taking the time to read the Koran and conduct your own trial of its content and origins.

Do you see the irony of your post here?

[RobinFinderson]

Do you see the irony of your post here?

No, I don't see the irony at all. Maybe you are implying that I, as a formerly baptized Mormon, do something equivalent with the LDS church? I don't. My choice to leave was personal. I am generally impressed by what JS and BY were able to accomplish, and even admire the guts it took to experiment with the institution of marriage. I feel a real affinity for Joseph. I'm proud of my pioneer heritage and even consider myself to be a kind of Mormon. I view my participation on CUF as a meaningful way to participate in Mormonism, and I'm happy to be here.

That is pretty different than what oxy is doing with this little show-trial.

[woot]

Do you see the irony of your post here?

"Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people."

[creekster]

"Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people."

the irony abounds.

[woot]

the irony abounds.

Yes, I'm sure you think so. And while you go on with your endless shtick as the hypocrisy police, the rest of us will attempt to continue the conversation.

[creekster]

Yes, I'm sure you think so. And while you go on with your endless shtick as the hypocrisy police, the rest of us will attempt to continue the conversation.

Please do. Is this an idea, a thing or a person you are talking about here, btw?

[RobinFinderson]

It isn't reasonable to cast aspersions on a whole religion. To self-identify as a Muslim means wildly different things to different people, and there is no single right way to practice Islam.

To argue that Christianity is relatively better than Islam is not necessarily a feather in the cap of Christianity.

The question I have for oxy is this -- what good can come from these lines of thinking?

[wuapinmon]

what good can come from these lines of thinking?

Define 'good.'

[RobinFinderson]

And btw, oxy, since you couched the thread in terms of 'apologists in BYU's religion department,' the first thing I thought of when I started reading through your thoughts was an official LDS proselytizing pamphlet written for the benefit of Muslims. It once represented the first presidency's opinion of Islam, and it outlined the similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith's foundational experiences. Growing up in Islam-free Montana, that pamphlet was my most meaningful exposure to Islam before my mission. Unfortunately I can't find a copy online, or I would link to it, but based on what you have written, I'm sure you would find its whole conciliatory approach to be an apologetic piece of crap.

[RobinFinderson]

Define 'good.'

I suppose I just mean 'useful.' oxy's approach just doesn't seem like it could lead to any useful conclusions. To the extent that he is right, oxy's points could contribute to the rationalizing of anti-Muslim prejudice. The reality, as I see it, is that the only appropriate way to judge religious people is by how they individually choose to practice their faith. The actual stuff that religions produce, history, scripture, prophets/imams, is just something for individuals to wrestle with as they figure out what it all means to them as individuals.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am generally impressed by what JS and BY were able to accomplish, and even admire the guts it took to experiment with the institution of marriage.

That was funny. Of all the things to admire...

[Flystripper]

That was funny. Of all the things to admire...

He is a glass half full kind of guy!