A question for muslim guppies, what are the mechanisms sanctioned in the Quran for spreading the message of Allah SWT.
The muslims surrounding the Prophet SAW believed they were chosen by Allah SWT to spread the message of Islam and our history is replete with examples where it was spread through war and peacefully through trading posts.
The earlier companions had such immense faith and insight that they offered Islam as the right thing not as a proposition for mutual benefit, which is clear when they said Accept Islam, Pay tax (our lordship) or decide our fates through battle. The majority of masses are always poor or underprivileged in many nation, it would be wrong to say the equality preached and practiced in Islam (if practiced also) was not appreciated by the subjected masses as compared to their own repressive regimes. So even in cases where one could argue that it entered the lives of some imperially but that was just the tip of the iceberg, it sinked in because it was worth it not because someone drove it to the depths forcefully.
I am unaware in history prior to Islam where any religion or ideology or way of life was spread based on conditioned peace i.e. accept it as true, if you don’t I simply return to my post and you live your way of life.
So irrespective of the means to carry an ideology or religion or way of life, it must have the substance to endure and prove its worth as well. So even if Islam was promoted imperially as some would like to claim, it achieved its longevity with the masses because it freed them from bondage except with the few who no longer could enjoy the exploitation of privilege and thus formed the opposition camps to Islam.
Fast forward the timeline to today. The imperial means to promote an ideology or religion or way of life are no longer in vogue or acceptable to society.
So what are the new ways and requirements in this day and age? Clearly among all the world religions Islam is the one that lives within the existence of its followers. So where do we go from here?
My thoughts might appear a little disjoint and probably they are but this is no easy topic to discuss.
Today Islam is not everywhere because muslims are not doing their job properly. (Islam was once in Spain, it's not longer there as a major religion is because the muslims of the time did not do their job well, and were discarded). When you can't demo something well, you're very unlikey to sell others on it. Hence the situation all around us today. When we start to follow the religion as it is supposed to be, it will become very easy to attract others to it. Once they're attracted, it's only a matter of fact, they'll adopt it because there's so much harmony, peace, and blessing in the religion.
May Allah give us all the will, path, strength and surroundings necessary to strenghten and expand our faith, the will to practice it, the desire to be a perfect muslim, and last but not least, the motivation to practice what we preach.
Three off the top of me head without reference ...
Repel aggression/evil with what is better. i.e. Treat the ignorant and abusive with respect and dignity.
Pray to be leaders of those who are pious. i.e. Make your children pious and aspire to Islam. Surah Al Furqan.
Forgiveness is better than retaliation. Why? When retaliating we are merely levelling the damage. Also if we retaliate we are at risk of either doing more damage to others than that was done to us, or we can escalate the situation making others retaliate upon the basis of our retaliation!
If the method of introducing people to the religion by educating them on it is in practice, and is successful in inspiring people to convert, then I don't see the need to use any other way. In other words, violent and forceful methods are not the best way to go. Unfortunately, we're using these sorts of tactics on our own people today. I really applaud the efforts of those who try to facilitate learning about Islam in a comfortable environment.
Each person is responsible for their own choices, and the Quran is clear on that. Hence, you can't be held responsible if someone doesn't want to convert and be a good person, etc.
Therefore, there is no reason for forceful conversion methods. Other than to satisfy your own ego.
So we are all saying that today if say a muslim country was a super power then it should not be knocking on its next door neighbor country and say Accept Islam or Accept our over lordship or let us decide our fates.
So we are all saying that today if say a muslim country was a super power then it should not be knocking on its next door neighbor country and say Accept Islam or Accept our over lordship or let us decide our fates.
Peace USResident
I don't think you can include me in that summation. I am not saying that. In the case where a Muslim country hypothetically speaking is a super power and its neightbours are oppressive then they are obliged to do just that.
Take the example of tradesmen and thieves. Both people acquire something from their counterparts. Tradesmen do so by contract and theives do so without. Dealing with a tradesmen involves SELLING the wares, dealing with the thief is by RESTORING the ware to its owner. The rights of people are like a property. The rights can be sold by offering protection under Jizyah or the rights can be forcefully taken and put into the hands of the people of that land from its oppressors.
Because the world today are not accepting of imperal measures doesn't mean they are defunct, they are imposable so long as the thief exists. If it becomes the case that everyone is a merchant then without doubt the SELLING approach is the right one.
I don't think you can include me in that summation. I am not saying that. In the case where a Muslim country hypothetically speaking is a super power and its neightbour are oppressive then they are obliged to do just that.
So the keyword is Oppressive towards muslims. Otherwise its a peaceful approach.
Sorry I edited my post. Rather oppressive towards anyone. Humans are to be protected by the Muslims, Muslims should not just protect their own.
Exactly where I was going. So on a pretext of this how do we approach a people who are satisfied with their circumstances or way of life? Say to propose Islam to westerners. We are limited to peaceful means. And what do we view as belligerancy towards muslims must be defined before we resort to the imperial way of spreading Islam.
On what grounds do we declare someone is oppressed?
I don't think you can include me in that summation. I am not saying that. In the case where a Muslim country hypothetically speaking is a super power and its neightbours are oppressive then they are obliged to do just that.
Take the example of tradesmen and thieves. Both people acquire something from their counterparts. Tradesmen do so by contract and theives do so without. Dealing with a tradesmen involves SELLING the wares, dealing with the thief is by RESTORING the ware to its owner. The rights of people are like a property. The rights can be sold by offering protection under Jizyah or the rights can be forcefully taken and put into the hands of the people of that land from its oppressors.
Because the world today are not accepting of imperal measures doesn't mean they are defunct, they are imposable so long as the thief exists. If it becomes the case that everyone is a merchant then without doubt the SELLING approach is the right one.
So whoever is better at managing those rights deserves to have them or take them. If muslims today were apt at managing the rights of people then clearly we can make a case for accepting Islam otherwise not. This is actually a universal law of Allah SWT when he says he replaces people with those whom are better. What this is touching upon is those who can better manage the rights of people. So though in Islam the a large part is to teach us how to manage the rights of people when we fail to do so we are overtaken by those who can better do so or by those who can oppress us into giving up our rights to them.
If the method of introducing people to the religion by educating them on it is in practice, and is successful in inspiring people to convert, then I don't see the need to use any other way. In other words, violent and forceful methods are not the best way to go. Unfortunately, we're using these sorts of tactics on our own people today. I really applaud the efforts of those who try to facilitate learning about Islam in a comfortable environment.
Each person is responsible for their own choices, and the Quran is clear on that. Hence, you can't be held responsible if someone doesn't want to convert and be a good person, etc.
Therefore, there is no reason for forceful conversion methods. Other than to satisfy your own ego.
Yes PCG it is most honorable to lead by example and most unfortunate that we are unable to do so however the days of mass conversion are gone. I don't think the religious borders of countries have changed since the fall of Ottomon empire. The conflicts are no more to spread religion but more political and national sovereignty now.
The acceptance of Islam upon the population of conquered areas is still based on peaceful means. There is no concept of force conversion. When in the past people paid Jizya it was because they did not want to accept Islam and similarly if they were conqured after battle they still were not required to accept Islam but their governmental leadshipfell to the muslims. So basically the governance of their affairs is what comes under change not their personal faith. There definitely will be examples where even muslim rulers forced conversions and they would have done a dis-service to the preaching of Islam. Most conquered or taxed people accepted Islam after experiencing the superior leadership of the muslims as compared to their previous regimes in the past.
As the muslim governance declined so did the Islamic empire and the image of Islam.
Exactly where I was going. So on a pretext of this how do we approach a people who are satisfied with their circumstances or way of life? Say to propose Islam to westerners. We are limited to peaceful means. And what do we view as belligerancy towards muslims must be defined before we resort to the imperial way of spreading Islam.
On what grounds do we declare someone is oppressed?
So whoever is better at managing those rights deserves to have them or take them. If muslims today were apt at managing the rights of people then clearly we can make a case for accepting Islam otherwise not. This is actually a universal law of Allah SWT when he says he replaces people with those whom are better. What this is touching upon is those who can better manage the rights of people. So though in Islam the a large part is to teach us how to manage the rights of people when we fail to do so we are overtaken by those who can better do so or by those who can oppress us into giving up our rights to them.
Peace USResident
Perzactly! If Muslims become weak in faith and yearn for dunya, then they will be ousted by the worst of enemies. And yes, power will be given in the hands of those who are best. It is not surprising that Muslims are not leaders of the world today. America and UK govts. have nukes and are bullies, but were that to be in the hands of Muslims then we would have to redraw the borders of continents every three years.
Perzactly! If Muslims become weak in faith and yearn for dunya, then they will be ousted by the worst of enemies. And yes, power will be given in the hands of those who are best. It is not surprising that Muslims are not leaders of the world today. America and UK govts. have nukes and are bullies, but were that to be in the hands of Muslims then we would have to redraw the borders of continents every three years.
So then the initial conquests during the period of the rightly guided Caliphs was to spread Islam or subjugate people hostile to Islam. And Islam spread as a consequence of those conquests then. If Islam is preached peacefully then those initial conquests cannot be attributed to have occured for spreading Islam but to protect the borders of the Islamic state and Islam spread as a consequence of those conquests. The more hostility occured, further did the borders of the Islamic state expand in order to quell the hostility. This is the case when Umar RA caliphate extended into the Persian empire, the majority of the conquered areas opted for Jizya meaning they did not accept Islam but only muslim rule over them to manage their affairs.
So then the initial conquests during the period of the rightly guided Caliphs was to spread PEACE or subjugate people hostile to Humanity/Civilization. And Islam spread as a consequence of those conquests then. If Islam is preached ... then those initial conquests cannot be attributed to have occured for spreading Islam but to protect the borders of the Islamic state and Islam spread as a consequence of those conquests ** and people readily accepting Islam from tradesmen and direct invitation by writ . The more hostility occured **outside the Islamic state, further did the borders of the Islamic state expand in order to quell the hostility. This is the case when Umar RA caliphate extended into the Persian empire, the majority of the conquered areas opted for Jizya meaning they did not accept Islam but only Shari'ah rule over them to manage their affairs.
Peace USResident
Please read above just to make it clear for others. I have edited you quote.
I know the whole taxing the non-muslim rule if they do not want to convert, and I do understand why it exists, etc.
But I think in this day and age, even that method would be better left abandoned. It makes non-muslims feel like second status citizens and sort of pressures them into converting Islam. You want people to convert because they want to, not because they're trying to save some change. Best model of governance and religious worship is where state and religion are separated. You go do your own thing, and I my own, and that's that. Raise awareness of your religion and you'll see people who want to convert, converting on their own. Simple and easy, and no one gets upset, and everyone answers the same God in the end. And no potential for abuse!
I understand that you are saying this because as Muslims living today we take an apologetic approach towards life because we are not in the position that we once were.
However, please remember this:
Those who pay jizya do not fight for the country. They are techincally under the protection by the country. It is like people under assylum in this day and age ... those people are not given citizenship and hence are treated as you say feel like they are in second status.
This means ... for example, in the UK, time, marriage and sometimes allegience to the Queen can naturalise an expatriot and hence they can get a passport. The same goes for a jizya payer, they become Muslim and hey presto.
The only difference is that Muslims have to put more effort in to the state and get only the same benefits as the jizya payers. Muslims have to pay zakat which is an Islamic obligation. This amount is made a state demand by those who do not believe in Islam to ensure the circulation of wealth.
The odds are stacked against becoming Muslim in an Islamic state, because people can do as they like without the need to become law enforcers, but they will get their needs catered for just for paying 2.5% ... how does this compare with taxes in the West today?
I see by your statement that you are heavily sided towards secularism. I need not go into this aspect as it has been exhausted in other threads. Remember this however, that every Muslim has a responsibility to invite people to Islam, to give nasiyah to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. For those Muslims at the top leading the country that mission doesn't stop for them. By being secular we are removing critical aspects of our Islamness. There is no state other than the Communists ones that is completely devoid of "God" in it's law or governance. The US allege "in God we trust" and the UK state religion is seen as that what the monarch follows i.e. "Christianity" and thus many civil laws are based on these values.
Also this statement of yours ... "you go do your own thing and I my own" is a similar statement to that in the Qur'an. Where is advises for those who are the worst people who come to argue and misconstrue, "you to your religion and me to mine" Prior to this ultimatum we are expected to converse, with wisdom and invite, if and when the situation seems like people are merely interested in argumentation then and only then we make that separation. Not as a first call. If we do then we are at risk of internal incursions and state-in-state formations due to inadequate integration and inadequate policy selling.
