Mormons Invade the Arab World

Mormons are often the subject of conspiracy theories. Usually, however, those theories are confined to the United States and maybe to a lesser extant the UK, Canada and perhaps Mexico. Other places simply do not know enough of Mormons to extrapolate detailed conspiracy theories about them. Typically, in my own experience, we are confused with the Amish or the Jehovah's Witnesses or some such group. I recall once seeing an article in a German newspaper about Mormons around the time of the 2002 Olympics which included a photo of "Mormons" going to church. The picture showed a small log cabin with various people in pioneer dress entering. Where that picture came from I have absolutely no idea.

So imagine my surprise - to use an overly trite phrase - when today I read an article in Al-Majalla, an Arabic weekly news magazine from Saudi Arabia which has ties to The Economist, and discovered therein proof that Mormons were attempting to corrupt the youth of Morocco and make war against Islam.

In the March 23-29, 2008 issue (number 1467), on page 94 there is an article by Muntasir Hammada called The Arabic Maghreb . . ِA Christianizing Attack Cloaked in the Slogan of Religious Liberty. Maghreb, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to the Arabic speaking portion of North Africa minus Egypt (and sometimes Libya). Mr. Hammada declares:

International evangelizing groups are undertaking a Christianizing assault aimed at the children of North Africa [. . .] Other groups attract youth from the region who are seeking to immigrate to the European shore from Mediterranean neighbors by distributing financial enticements which the missionaries offer to encourage the youth to apostatize from their religion in exchange for an entry visa to Europe . . .

[Note: all translations are my own]

The article goes on to say that Christian missionaries are attempting to entice the ignorant and the poor in Morocco and Algeria with promises of visas and money into embracing Christianity. It claims that these converts are then used as spies, for America and Israel, of course, and that many are reduced to slavery. Missionary tracts and visual aids are sneaked across borders into Muslim countries and fake companies and fake charities disguise evangelizing activities. To be fair, the article says that native Catholics and Orthodox are not involved. He pins the blame on evangelical protestants from Europe, but mostly from America.

After discussing various studies by Islamic scholars in the Maghreb which claim that hundreds of secret missionaries with American funding are infiltrating Morocco and Algeria, Mr. Hammada argues that most of the converts will return to Islam because these "conversions" (quotes in Mr. Hammada's text) were made under duress and therefore will never divert true Muslims. He concludes by wondering whether this phenomenon is part of a Western Strategy to create in the Arab World a Fifth Column that will dilute the strength of Islam. He notes with horror that representatives of what he calls the "Secular Current" have called for renaming the "Ministry of Waqfs (a type of Islamic charitable foundation) and Islamic Affairs" as the "Ministry of Religions." This, he concludes, is just the tip of the ice berg of what is being done in the name of "respecting the doctrines of 'Freedom of Belief,' and 'Freedom of Thought,'" phrases that conspiracy minded Muslims believe mean inevitable Americanization, destruction of their cultures and traditions, and the destruction of Islam.

It is in his discussion of the American-funded, doubly duplicitous spies masquerading as missionaries masquerading as charity workers that he makes the following statement:

In order to accomplish this work there have been here in Morocco for more than three years at least, Christianizing Americans, whose number has been estimated at around 900 Christianizers (according to 2006 statistics), undertaking concerted Christianizing assaults in the cities and villages under the guise of fictitious and real companies such "Global Education," which has been accused of spreading American Evangelicalism. Moroccan security reports, according to what appeared in the francophone "La Gazette Du Maroc", have revealed the duplicitous work these missionaries have undertaken: namely, Christianizing on the one hand and spying on the other hand for various countries, including Israel. (Moroccan censors note that on the side of a philanthropic shipment overseen by American forces in the city of Tantan (Southern Morocco) under the auspices of the administration for a school for elementary education, school supplies were distributed and placed in the container was a piece of paper bearing the name and address of a church in Salt Lake City, Utah in the United States for the Church of Jesus Christ of Last Day Saints!."

[parentheticals and exclamation point in original; note also that the author uses the Muslim form of Jesus' name, Issa, instead of the Christian name for Jesus, Yasu'a, he also says last day instead of last days]

To say I was startled is an understatement. I have never run across the Mormon Church in an Arab publication ever. Period. I have seen some literature published by the Church in Arabic and two websites about the Church in Arabic, one of which I had a hand in establishing, yet never have I run across Mormons in a purely Arab context. I did, incidentally, hear a rumor that the Egyptian paper, Al-Ahram, ran a really biased article on the Church, but still. Arab news sources are generally Mormon-free zones. I wholly suspect that these school supplies were nothing more than school supplies. I feel confident in saying that no attempt was made to subvert the youth of Morocco in the name of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Last Day Saints," which I am sure is related the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints somehow.

Let me say, however, that I have no doubt but that there is truth in some or even many of his accusations in general. During my mission, I met various protestant Christians who admitted to sneaking Christian books and pamphlets into China, Turkey, and various other countries. I read a blog by a girl who was with the Peace Corps in Morocco who admitted to sharing Christian literature with people in Morocco, a deed strictly forbidden, I might add, by the Peace Corps. The Mormon Church, however, only goes in the front door. It is counterproductive and immoral to do missionary work on the sly.

So some of his accusations do not surprise me greatly. It is mostly his style and his habit of using insinuation that disturbs me. He implies that these Christianizers, as he calls them contrasting them with Muslim missionaries, are funded by the Western and part of a conspiracy to dilute the Arab World and weaken it. He calls Christian converts a "Fifth Column," though he contradictorily asserts that there are no real converts just confused teenagers who have been tricked by Westerners into betraying their "Mother Religion", as he calls it. They will return in the end.

This led me to think about cultural dialog and the missionary spirit generally. Mr. Hammada undoubtedly is well-read and well-educated. He can easily distinguish amongst the various branches of Christianity, unlike some Arab writers I have read who make the same error Americans do when they discuss Islam, namely, lumping a diverse and often dissenting mosaic of faith traditions and cultures into something called "Islam." However, he stills find it licit to see the worst in those outside his tradition and see only the best in those with whom he agrees. Standford did a fascinating study on this showing that people are more critical if they are told that the person whose speech they are watching belongs to a different party, whereas they accept those same things said by a person who they are told belongs to their party.

I have written earlier about the concept of listening more than speaking and of the importance of seeking to understand before speaking. This seems a prime example of that error, only seen from the other side of the looking glass, which makes it so much more apparent. It is easy to see the exaggerations, the fear-mongering, the over-simplifications, and so on when one's culture is the one being dissected by an outsider. It is much more difficult to see this fallacy when looking out and assessing another culture. It is healthy, I believe, for everyone to read a critique of their own culture from an outsider. One should not head, necessarily, these criticism. That is not the point. The point is to understand both how others perceive you and to understand how people often misconstrue and misunderstand others. This will lead to self-reflection in the way we criticize and evaluate others. We can also learn the unintended consequences of our own thoughtlessness.

As I shared this article and my thoughts about it with a coworker, he responded with a critique of missionary work and evangelizing. He feels, if I understood him, that while he cannot accept total cultural relativism of the utterly permissive strain, he is uncomfortable with the idea of trying to convert others to your point of view. I am intrigued how secularists often see such a stark contrast between religious and secular ideologies as if trying to convert someone to liberal democracy or secularism were any less evangelistic than religious missionary efforts. I asked him if felt we should therefore accept Female Genital Mutilation or ritualized murder both of which are still practiced in some parts of the world. He said he didn't and recognized where I was going. His struggle, he said, was where to find those universal values by which to judge which acts are licit and which illicit.

The trouble is, however, or as Shakespeare called it, "the rub," is that there can be no universal standards without a God. Appeals to common humanity and the need to live in harmony have some merit, but only some. One could argue that no stealing means that everyone can securely own and use property and thus if all obey that we can live in some measure of peace. No murdering, of course, is essential for us to trust one another. The difficulty, however, seems to be that none of these have any emotional efficacy. If, as we are told, man is merely an animal and the mores we follow are dictated by the necessity of living together, then there is really nothing wrong with these acts per se, merely associated social opprobrium and therefore, if I can get away with it, then why not lie, cheat, and steal for my own benefit. In this system, the individual has no intrinsic worth, he is a creature in a society who must obey for the benefit of all. Of course, it is argued - and I believe rightly - that it is in our own self interest to cooperate. Working together is a social good in and of itself. However, this system does nothing to stay the hand of those who think they can "get away with it." Religion comes at this same problem from a completely different angle arguing that there are eternal verities and laws which man must obey regardless of whether he can "get away with it." I will discuss in some future article the contrasting frames of reference that make cross-cultural dialog so difficult, but not today.

However, by rejecting the last hope of the secular humanists, i.e. morals derived from social science, we are left with either anarchism or theism as the only alternative that I can reasonably see. Please, correct me if there are other options! It seems that we are left with eternal conflict between ideologies. As a libertarian, I advocate a vibrant market of ideas where everyone, no matter how odious his words, can try to convert people to his banner. I do not, however, believe that truth will inevitably win out, nor that there will come an end to strife amongst the various parties of this world. I do not even believe any one group (my own faith included) has a monopoly on truth.

The American poet James Russell Lowe said:

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, --
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

I used to think he was speaking of martyrs whose ideals would eventually come to fruition and the rest of the poem, "The Present Crisis," is a romantic paean to tragically fighting on the side of right, though its "chosen heroes" often suffer as Christ did. This implies, sadly, that wrong will, at least in this world, be "forever on the throne." This constant babel of ideas and values will not cease while the world stands. Truth will be forever on the scaffold and wrong forever on the throne of this world. We are left as strangers and pilgrims in a hostile world.

Lehi said there must be opposition in all things and we learn further that the greatest gift given to man is his agency. If, then, we make agency the highest goal, we must maximize freedom. Freedom to disagree, freedom to hate, freedom to believe, freedom not to believe. We must be free to think that someone else is wrong -- something our politically sensitive times finds distasteful and which has lead to some strange bedfellows as Western liberal secularists go to great lengths to defend conservative Muslims, while at the same time attacking conservative Christians. I believe fiercely in what the Muslim theologians call "Ta'jil," which refers to delay of judgment until the Day of Judgment when only God would judge and make clear those things we now disagree about. Jesus said the same thing: Judge not! So my humble advice comes from the Desiderata of Max Ehrmann --often erroneously ascribed to that prolific author Anonymous:

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.