Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.: Spirit-Born Brothers

By Paul Derengowski

In this extensively researched work, Dr. Derengowski examines the parallels between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr. as well as the religions they started, Islam and Mormonism.  Follow along as he looks at the fascinating similarities between these two men and the communities and beliefs they founded.  The three main sections of the book

• Language: English
• Publisher: St. Polycarp Publishing House
• Release date: Mar 7, 2019
• ISBN: 9781947707931

Book preview

Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.

Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.

Spirit-Born Brothers

Paul Derengowski, Ph.D.

With a Foreword by

Henk Stoker, Ph.D.

St. Polycarp Publishing House

Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.

Spirit-Born Brothers

---

Paul Derengowski, Ph.D.

---

Copyright © 2019 Paul Derengowski

---

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

---

Cover images: Licensed via Shutterstock / Everett Historical and elomda; also Licensed via Lightstock

---

ISBN: 1-947707-93-0

ISBN-13: 978-1-947707-93-1

---

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018961376

---

Published by St. Polycarp Publishing House

www.stpolycarppublishinghouse.com

[e-mail]

---

Printed in the United States of America

Created with Vellum Created with Vellum

Dedication

To my wife and best friend, Chris:

---

An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.

---

(Proverbs 31:10-12)

Contents

Acknowledgments

Foreword

Introduction

I. Spiritual Parallels

1. Spiritual Regeneracy or Unregeneracy?

2. Muhammad: Believer or Infidel?

3. Joseph Smith: Believer or Infidel?

4. Muhammad and the Occult

5. Joseph Smith and the Occult: Early America

6. Joseph Smith and the Occult: Family Influences

7. Joseph Smith and the Occult: Community Influences

8. Joseph Smith and the Occult: Organizational Influences

9. Spirit-Motivated Doctrines of Muhammad and Joseph Smith

II. Revelational Parallels

1. The Message of the Koran and The Book of Mormon

2. The Inspiration of the Koran and The Book of Mormon

3. The Inerrancy of the Koran and The Book of Mormon

III. Relational Parallels

1. Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Women

2. Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and the Jews

3. Muslims, Mormons, and Mankind

Conclusion

List of References

Appendices

IV. Spiritual Parallels

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Notes

About the Author

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the library staffs at both the Southwestern Baptist Theology Library in Fort Worth, Texas, as well as the Fort Worth Public Library, both of which provided innumerable resources and timely material that helped in the production of this manuscript. Also, I would like to acknowledge Dr. John Barber for his helpful advice during difficult times, Mr. Lee Trollip for guiding me through the bursary process that helped to fund the project, Ms. Annelize Liebenberg for always have the right answer to all of my administrative questions, and especially to my mentor, advisor, and promoter, Dr. Henk Stoker for his insight, expertise, guidance, and patience. I could not have completed this educational trek or academic script without each and every one of you. Thank you!

Foreword

Dr. Henk Stoker

Professor in Apologetics and Ethics

North-West University, South Africa

---

In this book Paul Derengowski explores the significant claims by two of the most prominent religious leaders in human history, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism. He works from a presuppositional apologetic framework which implies that he delves into what these leaders and their followers themselves say about their presuppositions and starting points, and evaluate them according to the continuity and consistency thereof, as well as basic presuppositions of the historic Christian faith to which they say they are in some ways connected to. The research includes the textual contributions of these leaders, their self-proclaimed roles as prophets of God, as well as other crucial aspects of the founders of these religion lives and teachings.

While their followers sees Muhammad and Smith respectively as the last and most important prophets in the long line of Biblical prophets, Derengowski came in his evaluation to the important conclusion that neither of these individuals consistently met the criteria as biblical prophets. While reading through this interesting and important work, significant parallels between these leaders come to the front, including the way these two leaders in a messianic way actively sets out to control both the earthly and eternal lives of their followers.

---

God’s Mouthpiece?

---

To obtain absolute control over their followers, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith profess to be God's channel of communication to His people on the earth and have to be believed without reservation. In chapter 9 Derengowski makes the following remarks about these founders of Islam and Mormonism:

Although Muhammad was admittedly a mere man (Surah 18:110; 41:6), still he was the exemplar for humanity to follow (Surah 33:21) and God’s final prophet which delivered a divine message of warning, glad tidings, and restoration. … Muhammad, in other words, became God’s intimate spokesman, revelator, and visionary, the Seal of the Prophets (Surah 33:40)

Although Joseph Smith was admittedly a mere man, still he was the exemplar for humanity to follow and God’s final prophet which delivered a divine message of warning, glad tidings, and restoration. … Joseph Smith, in other words, became God’s intimate spokesman, revelator, and visionary, the foremost in the company of historical prophets.

Because both Muhammad and Joseph Smith align themselves with the biblical prophets of old, and by doing so claims to be God’s final and most important mouthpiece with a direct communication line with God, Derengowski did important work to define what a biblical prophet is according to the Bible – from both the Old and New Testaments perspectives. Although Muhammad and Smith and their followers frequently made allusions to the biblical prophets, their view and understanding of who God is, differs in crucial ways from what the prophets of God taught as described in the Bible. Actually these religious groups should admit it themselves, because their views of God and gods differ in crucial ways from the understanding of orthodox Christianity based on the Bible.

In truth these two religious leaders are seen by their followers as being more than important prophets. While trying not to say it, they are actually regarded as the sole channel of communication of truth. While being taught that God is in control of their religious organization and that He uses their leaders to achieve his goal on earth, the opposite seems to be true. These leaders decide what should be believed and lived and make their decisions to be God's. What they want to happen is, according to them, what God wanted.

---

Working for Salvation

---

Muslims and Mormons are convinced that their salvation and eternal life depends on themselves according to the way they follow the prescribed activities of their founders. As Derengowski puts it:

Failure to recognize Muhammad as God’s most significant modern-day prophet, messenger, and exemplar could only result in one’s personal damnation (Surah 4:13-14; 9:88-90). … In Islam, since there is no inherent sinfulness that needs to be atoned for, then no one has any real sense of the need for salvation either. Humans are merely weak or frail creatures that need guidance from prophets to lead them to perfect their lives (ch.9)

Failure to recognize Joseph Smith as God’s most significant modern-day prophet, seer, and revelator could only result in one’s personal damnation. … Joseph Fielding Smith ([1954]: 1:189-90) makes this point perfectly clear when he wrote: "NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. … The parallel between Mormonism and Islam is seen in the fact that Mormons, like Muslims, believe that if salvation occurs, especially on the individual level, then it must be accomplished through meritorious effort … then a person may inherit one of three glories in the afterlife, depending on one’s relationship to the Mormon Church and the works performed in the current life. (ch.9)

The difference in what the Bible teaches on salvation and what these two religious groups’ views are, may be described as radical. Christians believe that their salvation rests in God and not with a mere prophet. They also believe that their salvation does not lie in works through which they must satisfy God as if He is some idol. They confess that, according to the Bible, they have been saved through grace, which is a free gift of God (Eph. 2:8-10) and that they received this through faith from God who placed it in their hearts and so they share in His grace. They proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord and He paid for their sins in full (tetelestai). Christians live according to His will; not to achieve something by it, but out of love and appreciation for Him having changed them and making them new creations (2 Cor 5:17). Orthodox Christianity does not see the efforts of Christians to live according to God’s will as ways of fulfilling their obligations to enter a celestial kingdom – they are not busy with self-service in their life to the honor of God – but when believing in Christ they are assured that they belong to God for all eternity (Rom 8:31-39; 1 Jn 5:13) and can service Him for his sake and not theirs.

---

Changing Scripture

---

Derengowski makes the following remark about the importance of the holy books of Islam (Koran) and Mormonism (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants), while both these groups do lip service to the Bible in an attempt to connect the Bible to their specific teaching:

With the coming of Muhammad is the coming of God’s revelation in the form of a book: the Koran; which was God’s continuing, if not final, message to humankind designed to clarify and correct what others had complicated and corrupted in texts such as the Bible

With the coming of Joseph Smith is the coming of God’s revelation in the form of a book: the Book of Mormon; which was God’s continuing, if not final, message to humankind designed to clarify and correct what others had complicated and corrupted in texts such as the Bible

Not only is the Book of Mormon considered the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of the Mormon religion, the Mormons actually one-up the Muslims by claiming that "The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible text that had been lost or changed since the original words were written.

In his excellent discussion of these claims of the two founders, Derengowski puts his finger on the core problem when showing that while claiming that they adhere to the Bible, they had to say that the Bible was corrupt because their prophetic claims are not in conformity with Biblical revelations. Even if God’s prophets did not read or knew the writings or proclamations of other prophets of God, being a prophet of God, writing or speaking God’s revelation should still imply that there is consistency between the revelations received from God.

Derengowski shows convincingly that both Muhammad’s and Smith’s revelations that eventuated in the writing of the Koran and the Book of Mormon, lack conformity and consistency with previous revelations and leave both of them standing askew from previous biblical prophets to whom they and their followers wished to align them.

---

Influential Norms

---

Muslims and Mormons believe their leaders act as final prophets of God, consequently following their whole range of musts and must nots. Through this they exert influence virtually on every aspect of their members' lives. In Part 3, Chapter 3, Derengowski focused among other things on this and comes to the following conclusion:

Muhammad and Joseph Smith … claimed to be prophets of God after the order of Jesus. At no time, though, did Jesus ever mistreat anyone—friend or foe—in the manner that Muhammad and Smith mistreated those they perceived as threatening their agendas. Jesus never abused a woman, much less prescribed such abuse to his followers. Jesus never advocated or intimated the elimination of the Jews, and he certainly never went to war with anyone, much less could his followers fit the description of either a Jihadist or a Danite. In fact, it is because Muhammad and Smith, given the evidence above in this chapter, managed to do each of the aforementioned, that they set themselves apart from Jesus by their teachings and conduct, and cannot rightly be considered to be even in the same category as Jesus.

Christians hold that salvation is God's sole act of grace to which they can add nothing (Eph. 2:8-10). Out of thankfulness they seek after His will and norms, even if it humanly appears to be to their own or to the Church's disadvantage.

---

Conflicting Doctrines

---

Muslims and Mormons consider their doctrines as something that cannot be questioned as it was given directly by God to their specific leader, being considered as the last and final prophet. The unique doctrines of these religious groups are given to members as proof that they alone have the truth and that Christendom has apostatized. This includes doctrines that differ radically from orthodox Christianity, like their heretical views of the Triune God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, the Bible, and many others (see Part 1, Chapter 9). Their apparent continuous receipt of revelations from God or the leaders' sole authority over the interpretation of Scripture mean that followers of prophet Muhammad and prophet Joseph Smith have no right to weigh or doubt the leaders' view of Scripture and religious matters.

The important difference between orthodox Christianity and the followers of Muhammad and Joseph Smith lies in the source of authority. To Christianity the Bible is the final word and the standard against which all doctrines must continually be tested. Scripture must not be changed to suit doctrine, but doctrines must be a summary that reflects Scripture. It is important that believers continually compare any doctrine of any prophet with Biblical Scripture and must feel free and safe to discuss differences of opinion or views with their leaders.

---

Leaving the Prophets’ Teaching

---

It takes great effort for followers to leave religious groups with such strong leaders claiming to be prophets of God, because they lose both their spiritual and sometimes physical family members and friends. People who gave many years of their lives for false religions or religious groups, who now came to Christ, will experience a very cold shoulder and sometimes even direct persecution by their earlier friends and family with whom they shared so much. This can create doubt and puts pressure on these young Christians to return to the group and the people they know and love.

Christians must realize that these people need a lot of support, motivation, time, hope and genuine Christian love. The sacrificial love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in their hearts, should motivate them. In walking the road together it helps to know what the religious groups they came from taught and in what way it differs from Biblical doctrine and our hope in Christ. This book of Paul Derengowski’s can be a big asset to achieve this.

Introduction

The history of comparing Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, is relatively novel in contrast to human history, as well as sporadic. Starting as early as 1834 various antagonists and protagonists have tried to show where the two leaders lives have overlapped for either polemical, sociological, or apologetic reasons, with none of them getting much beyond the superficial level that later Mormon scholars such as Hugh Nibley and Arnold Green allude to in their critique of previous works on the subject. Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.: Spirit-born Brothers? is an attempt to finally get beyond the superficiality, anecdotal, and trivial, and determine if there are any real parallels between them. Moreover, if there are any parallels, to offer a possible reason or reasons why they exist.

At the outset the assumption is that Muhammad and Joseph Smith had many things in common due to their personal experiences, beliefs they shared, and the works they produced. Preliminary evidence to be discussed later points in that direction. It is also assumed that because of the nature of their experiences, beliefs, and works, a spirit, which is often alluded to in both their words—along with the words and works of others who knew them—was instrumental in their lives. A spirit that is often taken for granted as being from God yet has been rarely discussed with any amount of depth of analysis or exegesis. Therefore, along with an examination of the potential parallels, an investigation into this motivating spirit will be considered.

Even though it is assumed that Muhammad and Joseph Smith had many things in common, it is also acknowledged that many differences existed as well. There is no such thing as the perfect analogy between any two persons or entities without confusing the distinct identities that make those persons or entities what they are. It is unfortunate, though, that some, such as Nibley, Green, et al, have decided to focus on the differences to the degree where it is concluded that the main reason anyone should compare the two is so that pious writers … felt the needs to expose Joseph Smith and Mormonism…contending that both Joseph Smith and Muhammad different [sic] little from preceding ‘imposters’ and ‘frauds.’ ¹ The fact is, despite the differences, the similarities are more than coincidental, and in many cases striking. While Green may be correct, in part, that previous works were done with an ulterior motive in mind, very few, if any, conducted a study that did as Green fully suggests. It would seem that such evaluations as his have an ulterior motive behind them as well; one which desires to thwart open investigation and inquiry by poisoning the well before any evidence is examined or conclusions drawn.

---

Preliminary Literature Review

---

As noted above, the literature produced to compare Islam with Mormonism, and more specifically Muhammad with Joseph Smith, is relatively recent, mainly because Mormonism did not come into existence until the early part of the nineteenth century A.D. What literary works, aside from Mormon resources, that were produced early on were either sensationally polemic or glaringly unbalanced in their treatment of the subject. One would receive either a scathing rejection of Joseph Smith as a megalomaniacal conman or a sociological overview of the life of Muhammad with a few brief allusions to Mormonism to try to show an association. Eduard Meyer’s Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen mit Exkursen über die Anfänge des Islâms und des Christentums, ² which was written in 1912, is the most scholarly work dealing with Mormonism and Islam for its time. Unfortunately, Meyer’s approach was not so much a comparison, despite his assertion to the contrary, given that of the 300 pages devoted to the work only 16 are exclusively related to a discussion of Islam, as it is a reverse effort to try to understand Islam by an observation of Mormonism. While Meyer does an admirable job of recounting Mormonism’s history, mainly because of a special effort he made to live among the Mormons for a year in Salt Lake City while writing his volume and by a heavy reliance on W. A. Linn’s book The Story of the Mormons From The Date of Their Origin to the Year 1901, it is inadequate as a comparison.

Another scholarly effort written at about the same time (1905) as Meyer’s was David Margoliouth’s Mohammed and the Rise of Islam. Although he briefly alludes to the Seer of Poughkeepsie ³ and Mormonism proper a few times throughout the work, his main emphasis was to explain Islam from the earliest sources, and then if there were sociological overtures that seemed to exist between it and Mormonism, he would point them out. It is not a comparative work, though, after the order of what is being attempted here, as much as his work is excellent to help one understand the evolution of Islam from Margoliouth’s perspective in the day in which he lived.

A third early academic work worth noting which made a few allusions between Islam and Mormonism was George Arbaugh’s Revelation in Mormonism. Although excellent in its treatment of the development of Mormon history and doctrine, the few comparative comments dealing with Islam are not substantive enough to be convincing to the most casual reader that there even was a comparison. For example, in the Preface Arbaugh argues that Mormonism’s aggressive claims, political aspirations, and use of force make it akin to Islam, even if some similarities are superficial. He footnotes his argument with a statement similar to Nibley and Green by stating, Similarities between Islam and Mormonism have been misunderstood and exaggerated, and then rightfully cites J. F. Willing as an example of such misunderstanding and exaggeration. Unfortunately, he does not explicate through the rest of his book how Mormonism and Islam are alike in the similarities that he references. And aside from a brief comment concerning Joseph Smith’s priestly changes compared to Muhammad’s doctrine of abrogation, ⁴ there are no further comparisons made between the two prophets.

The remaining works, whether they are E. D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed (1834), Jennie Fowler Willing’s (mentioned above) On American Soil, or Mormonism the Mohammendanism of the West (1906), or Bruce Kinney’s Mormonism:The Islam of America (1912), are all highly polemical works against Mormonism, with little mention of why there is a connection between it and Islam, much less between Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Perhaps the closest any of them get to making a connection is a repeated statement taken from a Mormon apostate named Thomas Marsh, who quotes Joseph Smith as allegedly stating that he would become a second Mohamet, should those persecuting him not cease their activities. Therefore, aside from some interesting insights on Mormonism, they fail in their theses to show that a comparison either exists between Islam and Mormonism or Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

It would not be until much later that works like Nibley and Green would begin to appear on the contemporary scene of comparative religious studies. Interestingly, most of those works were done, and continue to be done, by Mormons, as they diligently explore the relationships between them and their brother Muslims. Amos R. Jackson (1997:14), for example, published a layperson effort entitled The Correlation of Muslim Doctrine and Latter-Day Saint Doctrine Based Upon Holy Scriptures. It serves as a broad overview of doctrinal similarities between Mormons and Muslims. Jackson quotes extensively from both the primary sacred texts of Mormonism and Islam to make his case that As I studied…the Qur’n [sic], with all the commentaries and notes, I noted significant doctrinal concepts that are clearly corollary to those found in the accepted Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An explanation of those agreements will be seen later on in this study.

In addition to Jackson, Nibley, and Green, the late Brigham Young University (BYU) professor Spencer J. Palmer has done as much, if not more, than anyone to spur on the discussions between Mormons and Muslims. In 1981, he helped to sponsor a conference that dealt with Islam’s Spiritual Foundations and Modern Manifestation, which culminated in the book Mormons & Muslims (now in a revised second edition, printed in 2002). The book itself is a compilation of articles written by several Mormon scholars and four Muslim contributors as they mutually admire the common ground that exists between them, and seek solutions where there are differences. Later in 2001, BYU scholars devoted a special edition of their BYU Studies to Islamic thought. Merrill J. Bateman, then President of BYU, made a comment that not only reflected the overall Mormon attitude toward the Muslim-Mormon relationship, but the spirit mentioned earlier. He wrote in the Foreword:

The interest of Latter-day Saints in all truth, wherever it may be found, has deep and enduring roots. Joseph Smith taught, Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers. Hence, he charged the Saints to gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 316). That spirit has guided the authors and editors in producing this extraordinary publication. ⁵

One year after BYU published its scholars edition dealing with Islam, The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research or FAIR published a work by member David Stewart where he quotes, almost verbatim, Merrill Bateman’s comments above, and then extols the brotherly and sisterly relationship that exists between Mormons and Muslims. Additionally he praised Muhammad as an inspired teacher, the reverence that both Mormons and Muslims have toward Jesus, and even makes the same kind of indirect compliment of the Bible that most Muslims do by asserting its inspiration and truthfulness, only to discredit it because of the alleged careless scribes and translators and conniving priests. ⁶ After Stewart’s manipulative effort, BYU again addressed the bridge building efforts of both the Mormons and Muslims toward each other in a final edition of the 2006 BYU Studies. Clearly, the prevailing contemporary attitude between them is that they have much in common, to which this work concurs, but also of a kind that none of them discussed, nor are likely to. ⁷

Aside from the growing interest of the Mormon community to expand upon the subject, the Christian community has been for the most part silent. Occasionally one may overhear a conversation where Muslims and Mormons are brought up in the same conversation, or one might see an article, like the one printed in the Christian Research Journal Are Mormons and Muslims Apples and Oranges?: An Apologetics Assessment of the Similarities and Differences (2005), or one may come across Dennis Kirkland’s book Mormons and Muslims: A Case of Matching Fingerprints (2008), which addresses the subject in a very non-academic and outdated manner. But that is about the extent of the Evangelical treatment, as demoralizing as that might be if one stops to think about the Christian’s responsibility as commissioned by Scripture when it comes to such an issue. ⁸ Nevertheless, in a few short paragraphs, that is about the most significant material from Islamic, Mormon, and non-Mormon/Islamic sources that have been produced in the past 175-plus years on the relationship between Islam and Mormonism, and more importantly for this project, Muhammad and Joseph Smith. It is not much, and what does exist does not adequately tell the full story.

---

Problem Statement

---

It is hypothesized that there are several parallels between the two founders of the two major religions of Islam and Mormonism that have been left unexplored, and that despite the amount of material that has been produced by proponents of both religious entities explaining their history and theological beliefs. What is more, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith have boasted to be either God’s final conduit of revelation or the one who has restored communication with God through whatever revelation God has imposed upon him to share with the rest of the world. Both claim biblical authority stemming from covenantal precedents that God shared with His people, Israel, while at the same time perverting that same authority and those covenants as they revise biblical statements oftentimes without compunction. In short, those parallels need to be explored and explained.

That said, the examination of those parallels will not entail any kind of a dialogue between the Muslims and the Mormons, the Muslims and the Christians, or the Christians and the Mormons, as interesting or important as those kinds of discussions may or may not be. It is simply beyond the purview of this dissertation to be able to do so, with space limitations playing a major role in the exclusion. As mentioned above, there has been previous dialogue between the Muslims and Mormons and the outcomes of their effort have entailed lengthy volumes. The same may be said of the other combinations of discussions. There is simply is not enough space to produce a comparable result and do the subject justice. Therefore, whether or not there are significant parallels between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, as well to offer a possible solution involving the question of what spirit motivated them, will be the sole focus of this dissertation.

---

Objectives

---

The objective of this study is to focus on the parallels that exist between the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith. As noted before, previous attempts to do the same are few in number, are typically either extremely polemical or unbalanced in their treatment of the subject, or fall short by failing to address the more prominent issues that tie the two together, even though they have been separated by twelve centuries of time and thousands of miles of geography. Furthermore, the spiritual aspect has never been addressed, at least to the knowledge of this author, which makes it all the more important, given the spiritual influence that both prophets experienced and reported, as well as exerted on others, especially during the nascent stages of the development of their religions.

Research Method

---

The research method to be employed throughout the course of this dissertation will be to consult as much of the primary literature as possible that is relevant to the subject which will not only prove or deny the assumption stated earlier, but to rectify the problem which has been prevalent for two centuries of making allusions without actually satisfactorily making the case. The primary Islamic sources are, of course, the Koran and the Hadith, with several authoritative biographies, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which are good to discuss the historical background of Muhammad’s life. One already mentioned (Eduard Meyer), along with David Margoliouth’s Mohammed and the Rise of Islam are excellent, as well as is Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad, Ali Dashti’s 23 Years and a more recent work by Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, are equally superb for biographical understanding. To assist in an explanation of Muslim culture, Ignaz Goldziher’s Muslim Studies, Albert Hourani’s A History of the Arab Peoples, and Ira Lapidus’s A History of Islamic Societies will all serve important roles as well.

From the Mormon side of the discussion the primary sources are the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, pronouncements of the General Authorities during the bi-annual General Conference, and then the Bible. As it is with Islam, there is a veritable mountain of historical and biographical material that has been published on the life of Joseph Smith, also from both Mormon and non-Mormon sources. Besides the seven-volume History of the Church written by Joseph Smith and B. H. Roberts six-volume A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, volumes dealing with Smith’s life and Mormon Church growth include Fawn Brodies’s No Man Knows My History, Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, D. Michael Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview and The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, and Todd Compton’s discussion of Smith’s polygamous life, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Doctrinally speaking, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith complied by Joseph Fielding Smith, along with his three-volume Doctrines of Salvation, Discourses of Brigham Young, Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, and The Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, as well as the frequently recognized Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, all serve as samples on a short list.

The dissertation itself will be divided into three parts, not including the Introduction or Conclusion. Part I will examine the spiritual parallels that existed between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, especially from their own understandings of a relationship with Allah or Heavenly Father. Though the founders speak of Allah or Heavenly Father frequently, and that they had repeated spiritual encounters with angelic beings, neither one made a profession of faith that they had been spiritually redeemed of God, nor do their lives consistently exemplify a regenerate condition. The Bible makes it quite clear that those who are not born of God cannot commune with God, nor see the kingdom of heaven. Additionally, that the fruits of a person serve as examples of just what kind of tree produced them.

Part II will focus upon the Revelational Parallels. In this, we will explore the unique manners that Muhammad and Joseph Smith employed to give the world the Koran and the Book of Mormon, as well as those many persons who were taken in by those revelations and became zealous accomplices to their production. Were these documents comparable to the inspired writings of the Bible? Did anyone really hear from God? Were certain artifacts indeed handled in a real tangible manner? Was the means of inspiration comparable to that of the Bible? If not, how and why do they differ? What—if they differ—claims do they present as being authoritative for their spiritual lives? And if the Koran and Book of Mormon are as Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and their coterie of followers suggest, then why were additional revelations needed to explain them, and do those revelations and explanations further previous revelation found in the biblical storyline?

Part III deals with Relational Parallels, or is an attempt to explain how Muhammad and Joseph Smith managed to relate to their neighbors, their women, and the world they wished to conquer. What conclusions may be drawn by comparing the early parts of their lives with the latter parts, as they dealt with the aforementioned? Were they consistent in their treatment of each? Both claimed to be prophets of God after the order of Jesus Christ, but were their words and works similar to those of Jesus? What should the objective observer make of any apparent discrepancies either in their own lives or with that of Jesus? How are we to make sense of these characteristics in light of their respective spiritual claims? Are their claims consistent with the message of salvation that they proclaim? Are their claims consistent with the message of salvation previously claimed by Jesus and his disciples?

Therefore, without further introduction lets us now turn to Part I, the first chapter, and a discussion of the spiritual conditions of both Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Both spoke regularly and often about God. Both men claimed the Bible as an authoritative statement from God. Both claimed to be prophets of God. But, what did they write about God and His spiritual salvation? Let us see where the evidence leads as we seek answers to these and other questions that involve the spiritual parallels between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Jr.

Part I

Spiritual Parallels

Islam and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as religions, revolve around the spiritual journeys of their founders, Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Abd al-Muttalib (hereafter Muhammad) and Joseph Smith, Jr. (hereafter Joseph Smith, unless otherwise specified). Those spiritual journeys are considered by their adherents as extraordinary to the degree of completely changing the course of human history. Muhammad, because of his spirit visitation, is considered to be the last prophet that God (Allah) sent to warn humankind of its idolatrous ways, and that by submitting exclusively to Allah and his messenger, humans may then work their way into good favor with Allah, with the potential of earning a spot in Paradise.

Joseph Smith is believed by the Latter-day Saints, who are also known as Mormons, to be God’s special prophet, seer, and revelator. That after 1800 years of ecclesiastical apostasy, he is the chosen vessel to restore what had been lost, namely the full gospel of Jesus Christ, along with many of the laws and ordinances that supposedly comprised his message. That by subscribing fully to his restorative ideas and doctrines members of the LDS Church may now progress unto godhood in the Celestial abode of heaven, which is the highest aspiration attainable in Mormon thought.

What often gets lost in all the exultant commentary, as Muhammad and Joseph Smith’s lives are explained by exponents who adore them, are the spiritual parallels that seem to exist, which calls into question what their followers have historically said and are currently saying about them. Parallels such as their spiritual rebirth or non-rebirth from God; their spiritual fidelity or infidelity; the occultic influences that both testify of at the inception of their journeys, as well as visitations and practices that followed them throughout their lives; the familial, community, and organizational influences which impacted the spiritual decisions they would make in the name of God; and finally, the belief structures or doctrines they produced as spiritual leaders. It will be the goal of Part I of this dissertation to examine these apparent spiritual parallels that Muhammad and Joseph Smith shared in order to critique not only the veracity of the claims made by them and their followers, but to also help discern just what spirit motivated them.

In Chapter 1, we will look at Muhammad and Smith’s spiritual condition. Although both claimed that they believed in God, what did believing in God and their relationship to God and salvation entail? Was it along the lines of the biblical understanding of salvation, or did they represent something new and different from the biblical message? If so, what are we to make of that? After all, Jesus Christ had stressed the necessity of being born again or from above, in order for anyone to enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:3-5), much less understand God’s calling or will, and that only by going through Jesus was that necessity fulfilled (Jn. 14:6). Did Muhammad and Smith believe or teach what Jesus emphasized? This becomes extremely important since both Muhammad and Smith claimed to follow in the steps of Jesus, as prophets of God, which means that their messages would serve as extensions of his message. Is there any indication from the historical records provided by Muhammad, Smith, or their followers that either one of them were born again or spiritually regenerate? Or are the records and testimonies, as demonstrated by outward behavior, bereft of any hint that either man even knew what Jesus meant by being spiritually reborn?

In Chapters 2 and 3, we will look at a second ostensible parallel in the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of both men. Surely if Muhammad and Smith were as their followers claimed, then neither should exhibit consistent indications of infidelity. They should be as is argued; that they are the perfect models of godly men. In fact, aside from an occasional moment of human indiscretion that all humans tend to engage in, which makes them sinners, Muhammad and Smith ought to serve as paragons of moral virtue that all men should emulate. But, were they men of faith or were they really men of unbelief or infidelity? Did they acknowledge Jesus in all that they said and did, or did they deny him through their words and works?

Chapters 4 and 5 will examine the possible occult parallels of both prophets. God’s people had been warned in the Bible about involving themselves in occult practices — mediumship, necromancy, witchcraft, et al—all of which were an affront to God (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10-11, 14; Gal. 5:20). In fact, their involvement served as lines of demarcation that separated them from God, as the people chose to serve dead idols rather than the living God. Yet, were both Muhammad and Smith involved in the occult, sharing similar occult spiritual experiences in the nascent stages of the development of their respective religions? Moreover, did they condone others involvement in the occult; practices which were similar to those forbidden by God? If Muhammad and Smith were indeed prophets of God, then why would they make such an endorsement as part of their newfound religions? Did God somehow change his mind or his statutes regarding the occult, or was something else driving both Muhammad and Smith to embrace the forbidden and leading them to expound uncannily similar doctrines and practices?

In Chapters 6 through 8, we will take a more detailed look at the external influences upon Joseph Smith that led to the production of Mormonism. Although Muhammad’s family, community, and organizations in his area were all influential in helping him found Islam, and is discussed in brief, the information is scarce by comparison when considering Smith’s life and the founding of Mormonism. Such a survey of Smith’s life cannot possibly explain the external influences that helped to shape Muhammad’s life, as German historian Eduard Meyer envisioned when he wrote his volume mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, given the doctrines the two would produce, even though they were twelve centuries removed from each other, the plentiful amount of data that Smith and his followers have recorded over the years may prove useful in helping to understand both religions.

In Chapter 9, we will examine some of the major doctrines that Muhammad and Smith espoused as the byproducts of their spiritual endeavors. Did both men believe the same things about their roles as prophets, the corruption of the Bible, the Trinitarian nature of God, Jesus as a creature, the Holy Spirit, sin and its effects, the potential of humans to procure their salvation, eternal security or the lack thereof, and Jesus’ Second Coming? If so, what spirit could have possibly motivated them? Was it the Spirit of God? It is with these issues and questions in mind that we begin our examination into the spiritual parallels or experiences by first delving into the spiritual relationship both men had or did not have with God. Such a query has never been considered among the faithful. It is simply conceded that they were men of God. But, were they? Let the records speak.

Chapter 1

Spiritual Regeneracy or Unregeneracy?

Before answering the question of whether or not Muhammad and Joseph Smith were spiritually unregenerate or degenerate, it is best to give first a brief definition of just what it means to be spiritually unregenerate and how it adversely affects the human view of reality, and what the biblical prescription is to overcome it through spiritual regeneracy. Secondly, it must be asked whether Muhammad or Smith understood their own spiritual condition along the lines of the biblical definition or prescription. Did they see a renewed relationship with God by a completely different means? Moreover, is it possible that they were consistent with their own position as evidenced by their subsequent behaviors?

Spiritual unregeneracy is the condition of separation that all human beings find themselves in relation to God prior to redemption. ¹ It is a byproduct of the rebellion of Adam when he, along with his wife Eve, decided to disobey God and partake of the fruit that was forbidden them in the Garden of Eden. Their act brought upon them, and the rest of the human race, both physical and spiritual death, or separation from God, the latter of which is synonymous with spiritual unregeneracy (Frame 2006:110-12; Grudem 1994:496-98). It is the very thing that Jesus alludes to in his discourse with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel, whereby only spiritual rebirth from above can remedy (Jn. 3:3, 7) the separation from God (Erickson 1998:888, 956). As Morris (2005:194) points out, Jesus is stressing the truth that spiritual regeneration is indispensable if we would be God’s. A further implication is that no one belongs to God before His intervention in the life of the unregenerate to regenerate that person (Rom. 8:9). ²

Elsewhere, the apostle Paul provided the framework of what spiritual unregeneracy meant, when he wrote of the human condition prior to God bringing the Ephesian believers to life, as being dead in trespasses and sins, sons of disobedience and children of [God’s] wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). He followed that with a catalogue list of devastating qualities and characteristics that are consistent with the condition itself: darkness of understanding, exclusion from the life of God, ignorance of godly things or of God himself, hardness and callousness of the heart, lack of moral restraint, impurity in thought and deed, and inherent greediness to fulfill one’s lusts (Eph. 4:17-19). It would lead John Calvin (2006:253) to write, Paul not only condemns the inordinate impulses of the appetites that are seen, but especially contends the mind is given over to blindness and the heart to depravity. To suffer from spiritual unregeneracy, then, is to exist in a state of complete moral, mental, and psychological rebellion against God, as an enemy of God’s (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21; James 4:4), of which there is no hope of pleasing or relating to God, until God graciously exercises his divine prerogative to intervene in the spiritually unregenerate’s life to forgive the sinner of his rebellion and then breathe spiritual life into him. Jesus would call the latter being born again (Jn. 3:3, 5), without which no one would ever see the kingdom of heaven. When spiritual rebirth occurs, then the regenerate person turns to God in faith, acknowledges what God has done—both in speech and conduct, which were prepared by God beforehand—and then lives out his life accordingly as God has preordained (Eph. 2:10).

When we turn to the question of either Muhammad or Joseph Smith’s regeneracy or unregeneracy, what do we find?

---

Muhammad

---

In Muhammad’s case there is no personal testimony on his part in the Koran, the Hadith, or the Sunnah that he ever subscribed to the idea of following or trusting Jesus as his personal savior, much less the concept of being born again that Jesus taught. Muhammad not only saw himself as superior, as God’s last prophet, to Jesus, but also believed that Jesus was nothing more than another human being; that he never purchased redemption for the whole of humanity on the cross or even died on the cross at all. Jesus, in other words, did nothing to save anyone and that those who followed him made up stories about him that were not true. Moreover, as Quasem (2011:35) pointed out, there are two elements within Islamic thought which lead to salvation, the former of which consists of an additional three factors, the absence of one negates the other two. Those initial two elements are faith and action. The three factors which make Islamic faith what it is are (1) belief in the oneness of God, (2) belief in the prophecy of Muhammad, and (3) belief in life after death (2011:31-33). Add to that the multiple degrees of faith inherent in Islam and it becomes quite clear that what Muhammad advocated as the way to avoid damnation had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ prescription and everything to do with demonstrating he knew nothing about it.

Perhaps an even more clear indication of Muhammad’s spiritual unregeneracy is seen in the things he did after his alleged call by the angel Gabriel (Jibril) to Recite! in the cave at Mount Hira. After spending years in futility trying to garner the attention of the Meccan and Arabian pagans to repent of their idolatrous ways, he moved to Medina where, after gathering enough military force, imposed his will upon them. Although there is no initial struggle between he and those left over in Mecca when he conquered the city, his actions toward the Jews, Christians, and pagans are hardly those indicative of a person in possession of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). According to Ibn Ishaq the Jews were forced into conversion (of which very few actually did), murdered by beheading at the hands of Muhammad himself, no less, or were simply driven from the Arabian Peninsula because of their insolence (Guillaume 1955:464). The Christians were also forced to convert to Islam, pay the Jizyah (poll tax), or be killed or enslaved for their obstinacy or infidelity (Watt 1956:116). In both cases friendship with the Jews or Christians was forbidden, since both parties were considered the worst of creatures and destined for the fires of Hell (Koran 5:51; 60:1; 98:6). As for the pagans or remaining non-Muslims to whom the options afforded the Jews and Christians did not apply – although at first Muhammad allowed them to remain and tried to form a quasi-alliance with them – later he issued several mandates to his followers to hunt down the Mushrikun (idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in Allah’s Oneness), treat them harshly (Koran 9:73, 123), and kill them wherever you find them (Koran 2:191; 4:89, 91; 9:5). It would become every Muslim’s personal Jihad, lest Islam itself dissolve into obscurity and those failing in their obligation become hypocrites (Koran 2:216; 4:95; 47:4). Therefore, between the lack of any evidence that Muhammad personally confessed