question: what are the primary theologic …
question: what are the primary theological arguments in favor of active Dawah? (the bus ads issue is still on my mind).
-
aziz
Reply
Islam News @ NYT- Lady Gaga Denied Permit to Perform in Indonesia: Protests from hard-line Muslim groups result in the cancellation of Lady Gaga's concert in Indonesia.
- Saudi Arabia Seeks Union of Monarchies in Region: The conservative monarchy wants to form a single federation with its five Persian Gulf neighbors to better resist the waves of change sweeping the Middle East.
- Bowling Alley’s 12 Lanes Lead to Another Afghanistan: The story of Strikers, the country’s only bowling alley, seems to be that rarest of things, an Afghan good news story.
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
null, 
abunoor and 6 others are discussing.
abunoor 1:38 pm on March 12, 2009 Permalink |
Aziz,
I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for here. The obligation to do da’wah (invite people to Islam) is certainly clearly established in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Are you looking for those evidences?
This is usually characterized as fardh kifayah (a collective obligation which must be carried out by certain Muslims on behalf of the entire community) although there are certainly some evidences which would suggest at least some forms of da’wah are fardh ‘ayn (individual obligation obligatory on every Muslim).
Perhaps the interesting aspect of your question relies on what is meant by “active” da’wah. Although I may disagree with you on whether the particular campaigns you’re referring to are aggressive or condescending, I certainly agree there is an issue with da’wah campaigns or actions that don’t seem well tuned to the realities of the people whom are being invited.
At the same time, as I think I pointed out back when Willow and I discussed the bus ads a while back, I think you or even me or anyone else skeptical of them has to acknowledge that for a certain percentage of the population they do indeed work.
Also, we have to factor some other things into our desire to abandon proselytization as somehow unacceptable in a secular, multi-faith environment. First, the Prophet (saw) who is our role model in everything and whose primary mission of da’wah is now inherited by the Muslim ummah was by any account someone who engaged in active da’wah.
Secondly, we cannot simply say Oh, the people were different then. Large percentages of the population were not receptive to, and had problems with the active da’wah of the Prophet (saw) at the time.
I’m not giving any answers, other than that the obligation to give da’wah is clear. The action of the discussion is in determining how to best give da’wah in our circumstance since even according to the orthodox opinion there is not one prescribed way to give da’wah and this is one where people need to combine their knowledge of the Prophetic example and their own environment as well as role models throughout history to come to advocate certain strategies…but no one can claim this is the one right way to give da’wah. (in specifics, I mean, there are principles such as tawhid should be the main emphasis of any da’wah..and really tawhid, risalah, akhirah should be the main concepts communicated)
Willow 8:58 pm on March 12, 2009 Permalink |
I think it’s important to remember that the Prophet was by all accounts a brilliant orator. So were Imams Ali and Husayn. I don’t think there’s any room for comparison between them and any style of dawah that exists today, aggressive or not.
Let’s take Malcolm X as an example instead. His dawah was certainly aggressive, but it was also insightful and charismatic. And timely. We’re taking the wrong quality as the starting point. You can be aggressive if you’re also eloquent. That’s true for almost any form of public speaking. If you’re just aggressive, you risk driving people away from Islam rather than bringing them toward it. That’s an awful lot of kufr to carry around.
Ali 9:46 pm on March 12, 2009 Permalink |
I don’t seem to see the Cheerleaders anywhere? When will the party start?
abunoor 8:31 am on March 13, 2009 Permalink |
Willow,
I agree with your points.
However, (and I am not sure if you are stating this or not) I don’t see the Muslim community doing a lot of aggressive da’wah. Actually the Muslim community is not doing much da’wah at all specifically (obviously there is the “passive” da’wah of just living one’s life as a Muslim which people cannot help but do..and there are plenty of good and bad examples of that all around us).
There are certainly Muslims who are eloquent. There are many people, especially in the Blackamerican community, who may not even be scholars but who have used charisma and personal relationships to give da’wah to many many people and who have had many people take shahadah due to their efforts after the blessings of Allaah (swt).
So, all in all it seems we agree that the question is the quality of da’wah not whether we should be doing da’wah. It seems we disagree on the Why Islam? bus campaigns. I think the quality of these specific campaigns is debatable but I honestly cannot see why someone would find them overly aggressive. If someone thinks that saying Jesus is a prophet of Islam is aggressive, I don’t know what passivity would look like.
Willow 10:15 am on March 13, 2009 Permalink |
If someone put ‘Muhammad is a prophet of Scientology’ on the side of a bus, I’d think it was aggressive (even insulting) and I’m sure you would too. It’s all a matter of perspective. Christians have a concept of apostasy just like we do, so if your opening gambit is an idea that they’ve been taught to view as sacrilege, I question whether you’d get very far.
I was taught that dawah is a form of invitation. In Egypt forced/coerced conversion is illegal and taken very seriously (due to the sometimes delicate relationship between local Christians and Muslims). So what is politely called ‘aggressive dawah’ (Convert or go to Hell, all your prophets are belong to us) here, there would be called compulsion, and not only considered *not* dawah, but outright haram.
Frankly I think the fire-and-brimstone concept of dawah here in the US is culled from evangelical Protestantism. (Which makes sense since so many American Muslim converts come from Protestant backgrounds.) Methodologically I see very little difference between the two. I’ve met very conservative Sunni scholars in the ME who I am 100% sure would not approve of methods like the dawah bus.
abunoor 11:20 am on March 13, 2009 Permalink |
Willow, this discussion is pointless. I understand your points (although your mentioning of Egypt brings up different issues that I will resist the temptation to engage). I’ve already tried as best I can to introduce the other side of the issue, doing so again would be pointless.
The Prophet (saw) must be our example in da’wah as in everything else. We cannot simply say, well the Prophet was eloquent and we are not…the Prophet’s whole purpose was to be an example for us, yes he was a better than us but he was a human being who we are meant to emulate…that is why he (saw) was sent.
aziz 11:55 am on March 13, 2009 Permalink |
Abu Noor, I am looking for the exact Qur’anic verses that those who advocate active Dawah would cite. I am also interested in what hadith may be invoked, but the specific example of the Prophet SAW himself is not really relevant since he was after all, a Prophet – Dawah is basically in the job description. I am interested in documenting the scope of Dawah for the believer.
Abu Noor, I think you are correct in referring to the example of the prophet as inspiration – but thats a general reality. I am interesed in specifics. Not necessarily to evaluate the bus ad campaign in this context, but just to see what the sources are that drive all attempts at dawah, active or passive.
Saying “we do dawah, its fardh, because hte prophet did” is not rigorous enough. The prophet also married multiple wives but we arent obligated to marry out to our full allotment of four, either (thank god
Lets be specific – what verses would you invoke from Qur’an? which hadith?
abunoor 6:34 pm on March 13, 2009 Permalink |
Qul hadhihi sabeelee ‘ad’oo ‘ilaa Allaahi ‘alaa baSeeratin ana wa mani ttaba’anee
Surah Yusuf Ayah 108 Say (O Muhammad (saw)) “This is my way; I invite unto Allaah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me”
Wa(l)-takum minkum ummatun yad’oona ‘ilaa al-khayri wa ya’muroona bil-ma’roofi wa yanhawna ‘an al-munkari wa oolaika hum al-muflihoon
Surah Ale Imran Ayah 104 Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islaam), enjoining al-Ma’ruf and forbidding al-Munkar. And it is they who are the successful.
I’du ‘ilaa sabeeli rabbika bil-hikmati wal-maw’iTHatil-hasanati wa jaadilhum billatee hiya ahsanu
Surah an-Nahl Ayah 125 Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.
Wa man ahsanu qawlam mimman da’aa ‘ila Allaahi wa ‘amila Saalihan wa qul innanee min al-muslimeen.
Surah Fussilat ayah 33: And who is better in speech than he who invites to Allaah, and does righteous deeds and says I am one of the Muslims.
“Convey from me even if only one verse” Prophet (saw) as reported by Bukhari which demonstrates clearly that even if one is not a scholar one should teach and spread whatever he or she does know.
“If Allaah guides one person on your hands, this is better than the red camels.”
I’m just going from the top of my head, I have notes at home where I can find more evidences inshAllaah.
I would just repeat that the point is not whether we have to do da’wah — this is basically definitional. I find your statements quite odd, what in the world could it mean to be a Muslim, to be a follower of the Prophet (saw), if it did not include participating in his mission of conveying the message to humanity?
None of this answers the question of what kind of da’wah is best, but again there is much guidance in not only the way of the Prophet (saw) but in the Qur’an itself. Allaah (swt) uses many of the techniques you apparently find so distasteful and crude numerous times in the Qur’an. Now, I disagree that they are distasteful or crude, but I think we have to consider that in thinking about what kinds of da’wah are most appropriate.
Whether active da’wah is required would depend on what one means by “active,” but certainly there are few important responsibilities where being passive is suggested. And never ever would anyone who knew anything about the Prophet (saw) and his da’wah think it was not “active.”
Allaah knows best.
Muse 1:17 am on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
AbuNoor, I’m wondering if you could shed some light on this – I’ve read in one of Karen Armstrong’s books (can’t remember which one) that within a 100 years of the Prophet (pbuh)’s death, conversion to Islam by Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians was not actively encouraged. I’m not sure of the details – any idea what she might be referring to?
thabet 1:38 am on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
I think one view is that active conversion was not encouraged due to the financial loss (jizya) that would be incurred to the state coffers.
Some stuff (large pdf) on conversion in early Islam. Also search Google Books; I have found a couple of books with limited previews that may help.
null 4:49 am on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
Did zakat not go to the state?
thabet 7:42 am on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
I think the argument is that jizya made more money.
But it’s just what I’ve come across in claims by some historians. Others can shed some more light.
Willow 9:01 am on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
What Muse references is from Islam: A Short History. I found it interesting as well. Armstrong seems to suggest that early Muslims (post-second fitna, pre-Abbasid) discouraged conversion because they were still operating on a traditional Arab tribe-and-client system. It was (to them) the most obvious way to organize the ummah, but it meant that a convert had to become a client of an Arab tribal leader when s/he converted. (Ie, you owe that leader allegiance; in return, your enemies become his enemies.) But obviously this spread the Arabs pretty thin, both geographically and in terms of manpower, so conversion was not encouraged.
I’d not heard the jizya argument.
thabet 12:20 pm on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
Here’s an example of the jizya argument.
I guess as ever it was a combination of factors.
thabet 12:23 pm on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
An interesting lengthy discussion on conversion and taxation.
null 11:30 pm on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
I had interpreted that passage of Armstrong’s the same way Willow had.
All the ‘jizya arguments’ by non-muslims I’ve come across highlight the supposed ‘humiliation’ paying the jizya caused dhimmis. The Muslim explanations I’ve read are a lot more straightforward: Muslims pay zakat as a religious obligation, non-muslim (males) pay jizya as an obligation to the state that protects them.
Was the jizya really economically crippling and unfair to non-muslim subjects?
Willow 11:35 pm on March 16, 2009 Permalink |
Which tax is higher? Zakat or jizya? I’ve never seen a numerical breakdown.
Len 12:46 am on March 17, 2009 Permalink |
Completely going off track from the original post, but…isn’t there a difference between what the two are used for? i.e. zakat is supposed to be used for charity for the poor, whereas jizya can be used for more general purposes? In other words, isn’t jizya closer to the Shi’a version of khums (which gets split between needy sayyids and more general purposes determined by their religious authorities) rather than zakat?
Also, I’ve never actually seen a breakdown of how much jizya was actually supposed to be. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it seems like it was a sliding scale depending on the time and place.
abunoor 8:32 am on March 17, 2009 Permalink |
null,
The jizya is not at all meant to be economically crippling. The word “humiliating” in our context does not capture the concept, but part of its purpose is certainly to indicate that the dhimmis are acknowledging the sovereignty and protection of the Muslim ruler over them. So the payment is meant to be in some sense in acknowledgement of submitting to the earthly authority of the Muslims.
Whether jizya is “unfair” obviously depends on through what lens one views the world. The lens of a modern person who finds the whole idea of dividing people into religious communities in an empire that claims legitimacy on the basis of enforcing God’s law or the lens of a person at the time who, although they may have found other aspects of the Islamic rulers in certain times and places to be “unfair” would certainly not have argued that the basic concept of ruling was such.
I also think your point about the difference between zakat and jizya is extremely important to keep in mind. I realize that others are saying that historically, or in the minds of disbelievers, both may have been viewed as a “tax,” but zakat is actually one of the pillars of Islam, one of the primary acts of worship of Allaah (swt), and a right of its recipients, to be enforced both in this world and the hereafter. Jizya also has a ‘religious’ purpose aside from its role as a source of revenue.
Again, I’m not expert enough on Umayyad history to comment too much on imperial politics in that time (although I’m interested in the subject), but just for a second to touch back on the original qeustions raised in this thread, regardless of the policies of Umayyad or later politicians, there is no doubt from a religious and normative point of view that the Islam taught by the Prophet (saw) and understood by his sahaba (May Allaah be pleased with all of them) contained within it a deep motivation to spread the faith. In fact, I would submit that without understanding this, it becomes harder to explain the early success of the spread of Islamic rule and the early and later success of the spread of the Islamic faith.
Allaah Knows best.
PI.info 3:04 pm on March 17, 2009 Permalink |
Which tax is higher? Zakat or jizya? I’ve never seen a numerical breakdown.
Muslims served in the military, another demand made on their lives and livelihoods that was not applied to non-Muslims. A fairness justification could be made for non-Muslims to pay more.
null 9:40 pm on March 17, 2009 Permalink |
Jazakallah for your time AbuNoor. Could you expand on this point please:
“Jizya also has a ‘religious’ purpose aside from its role as a source of revenue.”
I’m not sure I understand what this means.