Proselytizing in an Islamic state

[blunderbus]

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Is it something along the lines of "It's ok for us to deny non-Muslims what we demand from non-Muslims because we're right and they are wrong"?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Since we've moved from apostasy to proselytizing, I'm assuming that you're satisfied with my answer on apostasy.

With regard to proselytizing, it depends on the form. Non-muslims are free to set up their own religious institutions and websites where they explain their religions and seek to clarify them. Methods that would be forbidden include some of the tactics practiced by dishonest missionaries like fake copies of the Qur'an which actually preach Christianity. Or moving into areas where there are impoverished and ill Muslims, and attempting to win easy converts there, not through fair discussion but through some of the tactics posted by br. Abrar. Also prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which again is a big part of missionary preaching. These things really have no parallel with Muslims because we cannot slander the Prophet Jesus nor can we use deceit in our Da'wah.

Is there any other form of proselytizing you had in mind?

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

With regard to proselytizing, it depends on the form. Non-muslims are free to set up their own religious institutions and websites where they explain their religions and seek to clarify them. Methods that would be forbidden include some of the tactics practiced by dishonest missionaries like fake copies of the Qur'an which actually preach Christianity. Or moving into areas where there are impoverished and ill Muslims, and attempting to win easy converts there, not through fair discussion but through some of the tactics by br. Abrar. Also prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting the Prophet Muhammad pbuh which again is a big part of missionary preaching. These things really have no parallel with Muslims because we cannot slander the Prophet Jesus nor can we use deceit in our Da'wah.

Is there any other form of proselytizing you had in mind?

Explain and seek to clarify them? What if that comes into conflict with Islamic teachings? May a Christian assert that Christ was the Son of God, was crucified and rose from the Dead? May a Jew assert that no Jew has ever, ever once, claimed that Ezra was the Son of God?

You say prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting Muhammed. What could this cover? Wouldn't asserting any basic Christian or Jewish doctrine on later prophets or Muhammed constitute slander?

Muslims do, from a Christian perspective, slander Jesus all the time. From a Christian perspective every time a Muslim says Jesus was not the Son of God and did not rise from the dead they are commiting blasphemy. And whatever the theoretical rules for Dawa are, some Muslims do use tricky tactics - look at the answering-christianity site which is full of, well, basically, lies.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

Hello Hei Gou,

Explain and seek to clarify them? What if that comes into conflict with Islamic teachings? May a Christian assert that Christ was the Son of God, was crucified and rose from the Dead?

Again, depends on the form. They are free to teach such doctrines in their religious insititutions, organizations, conferences and websites.

May a Jew assert that no Jew has ever, ever once, claimed that Ezra was the Son of God?

Answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/115321-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/118405-post6.html

You say prohibited would be slandering Islam and insulting Muhammed. What could this cover? Wouldn't asserting any basic Christian or Jewish doctrine on later prophets or Muhammed constitute slander?

One can say, "Christians do not believe in later prophets after so-and-so" instead of saying, "Muhammad was a liar" or something offensive, na'oodhubillah.

Muslims do, from a Christian perspective, slander Jesus all the time.

"christian" perspective? Christians themselves hold even more varying views on Jesus,

From a Christian perspective every time a Muslim says Jesus was not the Son of God and did not rise from the dead they are commiting blasphemy.

Which is not the same as slander.

And whatever the theoretical rules for Dawa are, some Muslims do use tricky tactics - look at the answering-christianity site which is full of, well, basically, lies.

Look at the site which it was designed to respond to ( a site which you admit to using). I don't endorse either website, nor do I use them as the quality of the material tends to be unscholarly.

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

Hello Hei Gou,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for such a prompt response.

Again, depends on the form. They are free to teach such doctrines in their religious insititutions, organizations, conferences and websites.

...to other Christians? How about to Muslims? How about simply publishing, in public, a basic statement of Christian belief - Pakistan has a law against defaming Muhammed. Almost everything Christians might want to say could be so interpreted.

Answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/115321-post2.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/118405-post6.html

Well they are interesting but they do not really answer my question. Nor are they all that informative as of course Tabari, who is not known for his strict accuracy as you say so yourself, post-dates the Revelation of the verse. Some objective evidence would have been interesting. But of course still not relevant to my question. I do not care if the verse is correct or not. I am interested to know whether in an Islamic state a Jew can say it is not.

One can say, "Christians do not believe in later prophets after so-and-so" instead of saying, "Muhammad was a liar" or something offensive, na'oodhubillah.

Well that would be less offensive, but it is a statement of what Christians think and not what, they believe, is true. Compare the two statements "Christians believe that there is no Revelation after Jesus Christ" and "There is no Revelation after Jesus Christ". Can they say the second?

"christian" perspective? Christians themselves hold even more varying views on Jesus,

Well all Christians of any importance tend to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Can they say, in public, in an Islamic state, Jesus was the Son of God?

Which is not the same as slander.

Well what matters is where the shoe pinches and that can only be told by the wearer. If you were in a Christian country or talking to a Christian, I would not be so sure that would not be seen as a slander as well as blasphemy.

Look at the site which it was designed to respond to ( a site which you admit to using). I don't endorse either website, nor do I use them as the quality of the material tends to be unscholarly.

I admit to having a look at both. But the outrageous lies of a-islam is not reflected, as far as I can tell, by the other one. I would not encourage you to find me an example, but if you know of one I would be happy to hear of it.

Yet it also misses the point - some Muslims do some pretty low things in the course of Dawa. Just as Christians do. Who started it or who is worse is not the issue.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

Hi HeiGou,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for such a prompt response.

Your most welcome.

...to other Christians? How about to Muslims?

Simply educating others about one's beliefs is not a crime. It really depends on how it is done.

How about simply publishing, in public, a basic statement of Christian belief - Pakistan has a law against defaming Muhammed. Almost everything Christians might want to say could be so interpreted.

If it is just clarifying their beliefs without attacking Islamic beliefs, then there's no problem. The scholars of Islam used to have debates and dialogues with Christians which is only possible when there is input from both sides.

I am interested to know whether in an Islamic state a Jew can say it is not.

How can one make such a comment if they do not even know what kinds of groups, heretical or otherwise, were in existence. They could claim that whoever said such was not a true Jew, but saying what you mentioned really seems to simply be targeting the verse in the Qur'an.

Can they say the second?

They could, although the former is more polite.

Well all Christians of any importance tend to believe Jesus was the Son of God. Can they say, in public, in an Islamic state, Jesus was the Son of God?

I would expect that they would naturally do that. Unless you had something else in mind about saying it in public.

Yet it also misses the point - some Muslims do some pretty low things in the course of Dawa. Just as Christians do. Who started it or who is worse is not the issue.

I clearly said I endorse neither site.

Regards

 

[mirage41]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Already answered:
http://www.islamicboard.com/229873-post41.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/230403-post44.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/230808-post46.html

So does that mean that in a Shariah state I can publicly hand out pamphlets and welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel and invite them to the "true religion of the Gospel"? The posts you directed me to are actually quite vague, they don't answer the question whether a person can preach another religion or not, they simply state that they can set up "institutions" and "websites" to "explain" their religion. An "explaination" is quite different from full blown preaching. So the question still hasn't really been answered.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

So does that mean that in a Shariah state I can publicly hand out pamphlets and welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel and invite them to the "true religion of the Gospel"? The posts you directed me to are actually quite vague

The problem is your suggestion is equally vague. What form does "welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel" take? Welcoming is a word that encompasses a variety of different actions. Be specific in your question and you get a specific response.

An "explaination" is quite different from full blown preaching.

'full blown preaching' is again being vague. What do you mean by 'full blown' ?

 

[mirage41]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

The problem is your suggestion is equally vague. What form does "welcome Muslims to join my local Christian chapel" take? Welcoming is a word that encompasses a variety of different actions. Be specific in your question and you get a specific response.

'full blown preaching' is again being vague. What do you mean by 'full blown' ?

Full blown preaching is vague? Umm, okay. Let me help you out:

If I handed out a pamphlet saying simple christian ideas about the life of Christ that's and "explaination". Now if I handed out a pamphlet saying the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire - that's full blown preaching.




Oh and thanks for penalizing me for daring have a different opinion. Its sad that you abuse your priveleges as a administrator to attack people whose opinions you don't agree with.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

If I handed out a pamphlet saying simple christian ideas about the life of Christ that's and "explaination". Now if I handed out a pamphlet saying the Christ was the lord, the only way and you must convert and accept Christ to be saved or damned in hellfire - that's full blown preaching.

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.

Oh and thanks for penalizing me for daring have a different opinion. Its sad that you abuse your priveleges as a administrator to attack people whose opinions you don't agree with.

No warnings are ever given for having a different opinion. Warnings are given for evading discussion through refusal to view others' perspectives and attacking Islam and Muslims. I don't have a problem with your different opinion. I have a problem with how you EXPRESS your different opinion. Please do it respectfully.

 

[mirage41]

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.

Who said anything about attacking Islam? If someone says "accept christ or you will burn in hell" it's preaching. And why can't people attack Islam? If so, that means Islam is against freedom of conscience and therefore inferior to the more advanced systems of secular liberal democracy.

Like I said before, they are perfectly free to expound their beliefs but attacking others as being damned in hellfire for following Islam is absolutely not allowed. What you refer to as 'full blown preaching' involves, whether explciit or implcit, attacks on Islam which is not acceptable.

Typically, what some missionaries will do is they will go to poor villages or war-torn areas where people can be more easily influenced and are not very knowledgeable about their religion. Such low tactics are not acceptable. Different faith groups are more than welcome to engage in educated and formal dialogue and debate, but evading dialogue and instead pushing anti-islamic propaganda is unacceptable.


No warnings are ever given for having a different opinion. Warnings are given for evading discussion through refusal to view others' perspectives and attacking Islam and Muslims. I don't have a problem with your different opinion. I have a problem with how you EXPRESS your different opinion. Please do it respectfully.

Evading discussions????!!! Are you serious? So going downstairs to have lunch or going out for a run or going to school is evading discussion??????? Lets face it, you don't like my opinions and are punishing me for it - a preview to the coming Khalifa!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Who said anything about attacking Islam? If someone says "accept christ or you will burn in hell" it's preaching.

The latter half of the statement contains the implied attack that Islam leads people to hell.

And why can't people attack Islam? If so, that means Islam is against freedom of conscience and therefore inferior to the more advanced systems of secular liberal democracy.

No it doesn't. You've made numerous errors here:
1. Islam is not against any freedoms, but like EVERY MODERN SOCIETY in balances individual freedoms with the rights of the general public
2. Every modern society places what they view 'reasonable limits' on freedoms. Freedom is not absolute.
3. Freedom of conscience has nothing to do with it. Your above comment betrays utter ignorance on the meaning of 'freedom of conscience'. It refers to one's personal beliefs and views, and they are of course entitled to have whatever such beliefs and views they want. The issue here is freedom of expression.

Evading discussions????!!!

Refer to the Dhul-Qarnayn thread. You refused to respond to any arguments and continued to restate what had been debunked. You even out-right refused to read the link I provided you with my responses to all allegations against the Qur'an, indicating that you had no desire to consider other perspectives and learn, but only to propagate your own hateful and twisted perception of Islam.

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

So going downstairs to have lunch or going out for a run or going to school is evading discussion???????

You were penalized for your posts not the absence of posts.

Lets face it, you don't like my opinions and are punishing me for it

Not at all. I suggest you take this warning seriously and be more open-minded and respectful on the forums.

Regards

 

[cloehadi]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that they do not allow non-Islamic religious recruiting in their countries, yet set up Mosques and try to recruit in non-Islamic countries?

Is it something along the lines of "It's ok for us to deny non-Muslims what we demand from non-Muslims because we're right and they are wrong"?

From what I've read in response to this question, I gather the following:
1. It's ok to explain a religion other than Islam (in non-islamic countries).

2. If a muslim likes the "explanation" of the other religion, they are not allowed to adopt that religion

Is this correct? If so, what blunderbus states above seems pretty accurate.
1. No conversions from Islam to another religion allowed (Islamic countries)

2. Conversions from other religions to Islam allowed (in non-Islamic countries)

So, can anyone answer blunderbus? How does Islam reconcile this fact? What's the justification?

 

[mirage41]

Re: Islam and Apostasy

Disallowing someone to preach against Islam or convert to another religion is not a "reasonable limit" it does not harm society as a whole. Making people watch a stoning harms society, your average Ahmed, Ali or Yusuf accepting a new god harms no one. Those aren't reasonable limits based on sound reasons, those are limits based on the imposition of your own personal religious dogma.

 

[Syed Nizam]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

 

[cloehadi]

It is possible to not agree with a religion and still have respect for it. Just because someone doesn't agree with the religion doesn't mean they are insulting it.

 

[mirage41]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

Preaching is an aspect of Proselyting. The hijab is an example of discreet proselytising, which is why French schools banned it. (which im against by the way).

 

[cloehadi]

I do believe that preaching & proselytising is TWO different matters altogether. To preach is ok, but, to proselytising is a different things altogether which the later have a more element of deceit in it.

I like your statement

 

[cloehadi]

Re: Afghan convert 'may be released'

From what I've read in response to this question, I gather the following:
1. It's ok to explain a religion other than Islam (in non-islamic countries).

2. If a muslim likes the "explanation" of the other religion, they are not allowed to adopt that religion

Is this correct? If so, what blunderbus states above seems pretty accurate.
1. No conversions from Islam to another religion allowed (Islamic countries)

2. Conversions from other religions to Islam allowed (in non-Islamic countries)

So, can anyone answer blunderbus? How does Islam reconcile this fact? What's the justification?

Do you think that Islam is taking advantage of the freedoms in Western countries? :?

 

[blunderbus]

"It is possible to not agree with a religion and still have respect for it. Just because someone doesn't agree with the religion doesn't mean they are insulting it."

Brother, are you ever in the wrong place