Talk:Islam and Mormonism

God and sexual partners

Latter Day Saints believe as Muslims do, that there is no trinity, however their notion of the Godhead is very different... Muslims do not believe that God fathered Jesus, but Mormons believe that Heavenly Father has a body and had physical intercourse with Mary (Maryam) to produce Jesus - something which is extremely "shirk" to Muslims. This should be at least mentioned. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That will be taken care of, God-willing, over the next few days. As you've observed, this article has focused almost exclusively on the similarities between the two; which, while very important and interesting, should not overshadow the fundamental differences between the two faiths concerning God, the finality of prophethood in Mohammed vs. "restoration" via Joseph Smith, the person and mission of Jesus, and other subjects. I hope to address these matters in this article over the next few days, without detracting from the many interesting similarities between the two religions. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much finished my rewrite and expansion of this article. Any comments, corrections, reversions or observations are welcome. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification---Mormons *do not* believe that Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with Mary in order to produce Jesus Christ. Rather we believe as is stated in the New Testament (see Matthew 1 and Luke 1:35) that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."---from Luke 1:35. I hesitate to stray into the crass while discussing the subject, but in an age when various techniques for artificial insemination are commonplace, it shouldn't be difficult to see that physical intercourse would not have been required. - Kichigaijin (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, which I think isn't valid anymore. I haven't found the belief you're disputing in the current version of the article, so I assume that it was already taken care-of :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: NO CHRISTIANS (catholic, protestant, LDS, or whatever) thinks that God had sexual intercourse, as God is a pure spirit. Please, take some info about religions before putting blasphemy in the mouth of Christians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.248.85 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Both Religions have a Foundational Stone

A stone plays a significant role in both religions: The Kaaba Stone is the center of Mecca. Joseph Smith used a "Seer Stone" to translate the Book of Mormon. This is an odd coincidence that might merit inclusion in the list of similarities. NOTE: Judaism has a Foundational Stone and Christ declared Simon Peter to be his rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yintercept (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about dissimilarity.

This article does not mention anything about how Muslims and Mormons are not similar or how Muslims have trouble with the Mormon faith on a theological basis as Mormons cannot be defined as either Kaffir or Ahl Al-Kitab. Furthermore, since Mohammad is believed to be the last prophet, Smith's existance is a theological problem for Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.183.231 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to the previous entry on this page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of images

I boldly removed two images used to illustrate the introduction section. However, I now realize that a lot of the images used to illustrate this article would fall in the same category as those two, i.e. images with tangential relevance to the subject. I object to the use of images for purely ornamental reasons, which I find to be the situation with this article. Images should reflect what is discussed in the text, not merely serve as ornaments. "It's nice to have some pictures" should not be sufficient reason for stuffing a dozen images into an article. __meco (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. Some of the rest of us feel differently. The images may (or may not; I happen to disagree with you) be "purely ornamental", but they still illustrate the article, whether their relevance is "tangential" or not (and I think they're a bit more relevant to the article, in this case, than that). A great number of articles on Wikipedia could meet your criteria for illustrations with "tangential relevance" to their subject matter, yet other readers enjoy the illustrations' presence nonetheless, however many there may happen to be (I don't feel that there are too many images here, and I imagine a host of other editors would agree with me). Since your own, personal objection to the particular type of images I have selected is your sole reason for removing them, I'm going to revert your edit. - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Without retracting anything I said above, I have removed the two images so that they can be replaced with the "Islam" template, as that template links to this article, and thus is more appropriate for that area of the article. I have also moved some of the images to more appropriate portions of the article, and rewritten some of the image captions to make them more specific to the article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject article quality grade

This page has been listed in the requesting an assessment pages in the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Islam for quite some time. Given that and being part of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement team, I looked over the article the best I could, to do an assessment.

Given that:

• This article is substantial
• Is useful to a casual reader
• This article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class

This article at minimum meets “C” class, so I am going to move this article to "C" class. I am 100% sure it disserves a "C" Class.

However, this dose not mean that this article doesn’t disserve a higher rating, just that I don’t feel I can assess any article above “C”. Most of the requirements for "B" class and above are related to the Manual of Style and the related style guidelines. My knowledge of those things is too lacking for me to make any quality judgment past "C" class.

Therefore I am going to leave this listed in all the "request an assessment" pages, to determine if it should be moved up again (as I suspect.)--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds completely fair to me. Thanks so much for your imput, here! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormon Tithing

The article states "Mormonism equally emphasizes charitable giving, starting with a mandatory tithe of 10% of one's gross income, generally before taxes or expenses are paid.[76]"

The reference (76) discusses tithing, but does not specifically say anything about gross income, taxes, or expenses. I think the reference should then be moves closer to the part that is actually stated in the referred material. Then, I wonder if the gross/taxes/expenses section can be left, if there isn't a reference to support it. The article that is linked in reference 76 clearly states:

" Unless a member meets with the bishop or branch president, the leader has no way of knowing whether or not the person is a full-tithepayer. This was emphasized in a 1970 letter from the First Presidency to members of the Church as follows:

"Every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly." (March 19, 1970, letter from the First Presidency.)"

I can't find an official declaration anywhere that says that the LDS tithing is to be based on gross income, before taxes or expenses. Am I picking at a nit here? (Which is why I'm asking before making an edit.) Abinidi (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say take a look at the fifth paragraph of that reference (which, admittedly, is vague, but I was an LDS for ten years, and we were always taught--in Germany, in Kansas, in Missouri and in Utah, where I lived at different times during that decade--that the tithe was before taxes, etc.). I'm bogged down in something else right now, but I'll try in the next few days to see if I can find something else that's more specific. Would you be willing to give me until Sunday or Monday to do so? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

People of the Book?

Do Muslims consider Mormons to be People of the Book? Is there any Islamic jurisprudence on this subject? If so, it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.229.58 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article consists largely, although not entirely, of synthesis, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. The vast majority of the sources quoted in this article do not compare Mormonism and Islam but rather discuss one or the other. Setting statements from these sources side-by-side advances positions that constitute original research. Unless much of this article is provided with new sources that discuss the similarities and differences between the two religions rather than discussing the attributes of one or the other, much of the information in this article should be removed. Neelix (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I composed about 80% of this article, and while I was unaware of the rule I was violating (and not sure I even agree with it), I respect the rules and regulations of this encyclopedia. I have neither the time nor the desire anymore to go back into this particular article, and I don't imagine there's really very much out there that would fit the Wikipedia criteria for sources that discuss both Islam and Mormonism together. If someone else wishes to find some, and rewrite the article accordingly, I say: "go for it!" However, if this is not forthcoming, or if what is found doesn't make the effort worthwhile, I'd say this article should be nominated for deletion, in light of what Neelix has said above. As far as I'm concerned, I'm washing my hands of it altogether. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is currently largely synthetic, but I don't think there's cause for deleting the article. Enough has been written comparing Mormonism to Islam that it is a notable topic. From very early on, observers compared Joseph Smith to Muhammad, and Smith even compared himself to Muhammad a couple of times. It was a common comparison through the 1800s and afterward. Even today, the comparison is frequently made, and quite a few references can be found on Google Scholar. Here is an interesting one, for example. COGDEN 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I've just lost interest in this subject, and given that I'm neck-deep in several other projects both inside and outside of Wikipedia, I just wanted to indicate (given the previous volume of work I'd contributed to this article) that I wouldn't be putting any more time into it (at least not anytime in the forseeable future). I'm not sure I agree with the "synthesis" rule in articles of this type, but as I said before, I totally respect the rules and regulations, and just wanted to indicate I wouldn't oppose deletion, if that's what ultimately happens. Maybe someone else with an interest in this subjet will step up in the meantime and fix the problmes Neelix spoke of; unfortunately, that someone probably won't be me. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think the work you did is quite valuable. We'll just have to find references for the synthetic conclusions. I am surprised how much literature there is on this subject, although I personally won't have access to much of it for quite some time. It would require a trip to a well-stocked academic library. COGDEN 03:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment! I hope someone is able to find those references, and that the article itself can be saved. I'm so busy now, I can't even think of taking on something like this, any time in the foreseeable future. Sounds like the same, with you. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Meat restrictions comparison

In this diff, the following

Islam [[Halal|bans certain kinds of meat]], while the Mormonism [[Word of Wisdom]] suggests eating meat "sparingly";<ref name = versethirteen>{{sourcetext|source=The Doctrine and Covenants|book=D&C 89|verse=12-15}}</ref> this is no longer taught as a requirement in Mormonism<ref name = Alexander>[[Thomas G. Alexander]], "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement", ''[[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought]]'' '''14''':3 (1981) pp. 78–88.</ref> as "[m]odern methods of refrigeration now make it possible to preserve meat in any season".<ref>[[Church Educational System]] (2001). [http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/manualindex.asp ''Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325''] (Salt Lake City: LDS Church) p. 210.</ref>

was reverted to

Islam [[Halal|bans certain kinds of meat]], while Mormonism does not.

with a note saying

(Undid revision 428614590 by 208.81.184.4 (talk) Sorry, but unrelated topic; the point is discussing slaughtering and allowed animals, NOT storage and refrigeration. Also, WP:OR)"

First, how are restrictions on meat consumption in both faiths unrelated to each other in this article where we intentionally compare/contrast these same faiths?

Second, where is the wp:OR in stating that Mormonism formerly had limitations on meat slaughtering & consumption? There are valid references pointing to where it is described in the Word of Wisdom, an academic article which describes the previous prominence of the meat restriction along with it's modern de-emphasis, and an official LDS Church study manual for collegiate level study of this portion of LDS scripture, which provided the current justification given for the modern position. All of this is documented, and it isn't even wp:SYNTH to include, much less OR. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is correct that this is a compare/contrast; however, don't forget that this is also a detailed one. Therefore, each point has to be on the same topic. That point is talking about banning certain animals and certain slaughter rules, while your point was about refrigeration and freshness. You can add that to a separate point, but I'm afraid that other editors might consider it not needed. I won't revert it though.

Secondly, giving you a policy doesn't mean the topic is in it. I wanted you to review the policy of "No original research" because of your first citation. Only secondary sources are acceptable, like your second source. The Word of Wisdom is a primary source. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From 1833 to 1901 Latter-day Saints were taught that that meat should be used "sparingly", and not eaten except "in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" or "excess of hunger"; that wording is still included in the Standard Works. The LDS meat restrictions specify nothing about refrigeration and freshness; that is simply the modern justification given for why the restrictions no longer apply, and was only included to help explain why this restriction is essentially dead in the modern church.

You are correct that unlike halal, the restrictions are not based on species of animal; instead it specifies more broadly "the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth". Fish and many other types of animals are not covered, based on their type, location, and mode of locomotion. Also unlike halal, this was not a haraam restriction, instead being essentially makruh in type, where following this teaching pleases God, and certain extenuating circumstances are also accounted for.

The D&C reference was specific for the quoted term "sparingly", which is part of the original text; since it is a quotation I wanted to point to where its source is. It also brackets where the source of the restriction is found, but doesn't rely on the original text alone, as 3rd party RS were provided in the same sentence for interpreting it & putting it into context, so not OR. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, for whatever my opinion may be worth. This is cited, and I see no problem, personally, with it being put here. It represents a restriction on meat that used to exist in Mormonism, but does not exist anymore, and thus would seem to belong in this article if for none other than historical interest. But I'd be interested in hearing other feedback before simply reverting back to that version. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice, you know haraam and makruh :p I told you earlier, I won't judge its notability to be added or not, however, I'm not responsible for other editors. You seem to have some supporters already, so no worries. You agreed that it is not related to the same point, so you can add it as a separate point.

All I said is that you shouldn't put the first cite, but the second citation is fine, alone! Happy editing AdvertAdam ^talk 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarities

See the Revelation of 1843 and the Quran, chapter 33. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is another revelation, referring to Muhammad's matrimonial affairs, in Chapter 66 of the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarities that discredit the two denominations, such as racialism, are not put in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to whatever you want to add. Thank you ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Succession crises"

I added the text saying: "A division of the religion into two parties (after the death of the founding prophet), where one party claims that the leadership should continue through the descendents of the prophet and the other party rejects this idea." This could be argued to be incorrect since there are more divisions of both religions. Even though I think it is remarkable that the succession crises are so similar, it might be worth rephrasing. Feel free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.227.175 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Better comparison of hierarchical structure differences

Under 'Differences between Mormonism and Islam' there is the point "Whereas Mormonism has a hierarchical structure, culminating in a single President of the Church, Islam does not." this needs to be removed or clarified. While Islam currently does not have a universally recognized Caliphate, the idea of the Caliph is still part of Islamic ideology. While the position of the Caliph is not as authoritative as the Mormon President/Prophet, there is still some similarity. Sharule (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I wrote that section originally, and I've put in some information along the lines of what you mention here. Take a look, and tell me what you think, if you would. Thanks for your contribution! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference requires LDS login

The current reference #56: James A. Toronto (August 2000). "A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad" from the Ensign requires an LDS login to be viewed. I found a valid link that does not require such login credentials but am not familiar enough with the rules of wikipedia to replace a source with a different link to the same. Would anyone like to make this change?

Here is the link.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

98.202.84.31 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. If you're curious, the change needed was [1]. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

investigate this verse, tell your leaders to investigate this verse

This verse appears to allude to the Qu'ran, describing its characteristic quality of completeness and Arabian (non-Jewish) origin.

2 Nephi 29:6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

This verse is not well known as if under-studied, and should be brought to the attention of your religious community leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islam and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114102601/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114102601/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114102601/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2067.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013071439/http://mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm to http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Differences

It is says here, without a citation, that Mormons believe that every human being lived together with God before they were born in flesh, and so on they believe in the pre-existence, and that Islam denies this concept. I don't know if it means that Islam denies the concept of the pre-existence, because then that is not accurate because as far as I have study, all branches of Islam believe in the pre-existence of the soul, including even the Quranists. Coyote7798 (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)