I have read Islamic books for sometime, and find many doctrines very acceptable. Like all religions, Islam has it's fair share of human distortion to suit themselves. Some practitioners are overzealous and go overboard in their preaching. Practice of religions can be somewhat private. In this regard, I have a very sincere question:
Why have the practice of preaching or teaching the sermon done through loudspeakers and the PA system. I mean the PA System that are turned on loud enough for the community at large. I am sure during the Prophet's (sws) days, there was no technology of this kind. Instead, men had little distraction those days, and thence the power of concentration was good enough to listen to low volume sermon talks.
Please believe that this is sincere and not cynical. I also believe that by using the PA system, some Islam practitioners and non- practitioners may not find this agreeable.
I do believe that the use of PA system in preaching of all kinds of doctrines should be restricted to what suits the audience and what does not cause disturbance for people. This is actually a basic moral responsibly of the preachers be they Muslims or non-Muslims, politicians or educationists. Therefore, I would agree with your views on the issue. It is only the zeal of the Muslim preachers to communicate their views to people…
Mr. Ghamdi is hard at work, trying to promote Religious Darwinism. His total argument is “offer prayer, keep fast, pay zakah, do hujj and remember Allah. Do not try to establish or do not strive for an Islamic socio political economic system, but if it happens by itself then it is well and good.” This is a term like Darwin Theory of evolution that says: “Let things happen as they are happening and Islamic state may come in existence through evolution. We really do not have to interfere with social evolutionary process.” As if Mr. Iblees is sitting dormant or as if all the Socio political economic systems that have ruled the parts of the world in the past or in present came into existence on their own. It is to suppose that all the unbelievers who are milat-e wahida (singe community) will allow this natural evolution of Islamic Socio Economic Political system to happen on its own. To me this is flawed logic, basically telling the Muslims all we are required to do is to do our rituals and If Islamic state will come into existence by natural evolution then well and good, else just be it.
Thank you for sharing your views. However, would it not be better to critically evaluate the arguments proffered by Ghamidi sb -- arguments drawn from the Holy Qur'an -- on the issue under discussion and point out their flaws?
We know that we cannot call the present day non-Muslims as kafir since the truth of Islam is not presented to them the way it was done by prophet in the form of itmam e hujjat (conveying the truth conclusively). My question is how did the companions of the Prophet (sws) refer to the people when they conquered far and wide beyond Arabia. Since those people (common civilians) did not witness itmam e hujjat they could be called as kafir. Did the companions (sahaba) also call the kafir or non Muslim or something else? Is there any authentic record where we see the Companions (sahaba) making distinction between kafir and non Muslim? My friend says there is an ijmah on calling non-Muslims as kafir through out 14 centuries. Only in the last decade people started not using kafir for non Muslims.
We can call the present day non-Muslims as kafirs if we take into consideration the fact that the Qur'an has used the word kafir in two senses.
1. People who have denied the truth regardless of the fact that this denial is deliberate or because of some other reason (example of this usage can be seen in the opening verses of Surah Qaf).
2. People who have denied the truth deliberately and have thereby come worthy of…
Some preachers use some baseless stories in the mosques and elsewhere specially to motivate Muslims to perform the religious duties of Islam. People are usually easily motivated by such stories. There are unbelievable stories about Pirs (religious leaders) who are thought to have done miracles during their life time and also after their demise. What should a sincere Islamic preacher do in such a situation especially when, if we directly oppose those fairy tales like stories, then our integrity as sincere believers will be questioned. We can be regarded as persons creating dissension in the Ummah.
This is indeed very unfortunate that some people try to persuade others to do good acts and avoid evil through narrating such concocted stories. The listeners also do not bother to think that they are being fooled by accepting things which they wouldn’t believe in if only they were to deliberate.
I want to find out that can a Muslim live in a non-Muslim country (for example UK? A scholar holds that one’s prayer will not be accepted if one says in a non-Muslim country. He says that one can stay in non-Muslim country only for preaching Islam. Please advise me according to Mr Ghamidi’s research.
Some scholars hold the view you have mentioned in the question. They usually base their view on the following verse of the Holy Qur'an:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُواْ فِيمَ كُنتُمْ قَالُواْ كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالْوَاْ أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُواْ فِيهَا فَأُوْلَـئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءتْ مَصِيرًا
Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they have been unjust to their souls, they shall say: In…
I want to ask you a question. I did four years of Dars-e-Nizami, did Hifz of the Holy Qur’an, have been learning and giving lectures of holy Book, have given lectures of whole Qur’an, and have been reading and speaking on so many topics of Islam since my childhood.
Earning a livelihood is a natural part of the scheme of life that we have been put through. In adult age we must pursue the career in which we have been trained and educated and devote our spare time to such pursuits as religious preaching, reading and instruction.
In the early period of Islam, we find that the Islamic rule was extended by the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) to a large part of the world. They conquered Persia, Rome, Egypt and many other countries of their times. My question is that why did they impose Islam on these countries? Why were they not given the option of accepting Islam if they wanted to?
Indeed, it is generally held that the rise of Islam in the early period was due to a wave of ‘Arab Imperialism’ that shook the super powers of those times and forced them into submission. In an astounding series of conquests, country after country fell to the sword of Islam. It was not long before the Muslim empire stretched from the shores of the Mediterranean in the west to as far as Indonesia in the…