Talk:Dawah

Removed external link
I removed the following external link: As it caused all my browser windows to close. Hyacinth 10:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) Dr. Zakir Naik Official Website "promotes Islamic Da’wah"

This page is linked to by the Kachina page. Perhaps someone should clarify that the other page is referencing a different type of Dawa? I myself have no idea what the difference is, aside from a few thousand KMs ... because I don't know what a Hopi Indian Wuya Dawa is ...

Invitation to believe
Invitation to believe

In the religious sense, the da'wa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, to believe in the true religion, Islam. The religion of all the prophets is Islam, and each prophet has his dawah (see also Prophets of Islam)

Calling any religion the one true religion is bound to offend some one. Would it not be better to say?

In the religious sense, the da'wa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, 'to believe in the religion', Islam. See Truth

Just corrected something back
Regarding Sahih Muslim #4294, just corrected an edit by 209.213.194.7. the verse clearly states, "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.  If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." The Arabic is a bit clearer as well. I hope this helps. Blainetologist 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

corrected?
Blainetologist, do you know Arabic?
 * already answered on my talk page, yes. Blainetologist 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

disputed section
The "meaning" of this Hadith is too broad and not placed in context. Until someone posts something more in depth about the explanation, Im going to place it under "disputed".


 * There is no dispute among islamic scholars. Blainetologist 14:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreadable
I couldn't make out anything from the article except a bunch of quotes. I would strongly advise the editors of this article to cut down on the quotes and incorporate more analytical information about the subject matter. I might have as well bought a Quran and read it. So just cut down on the quotes, there are many online Qurans out there already :) Baristarim 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Da'i (Islam)
Since a da'i is just a person who does Dawah, and since there isn't much information in the the Da'i article, I think merging them is fair. Any comments on this? --Bluerain talk 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose -- Da'i has a special meaning in Ismaili Islam. There's not much there on it now (except a link to Dai al-Mutlaq), but it's capable of significant further expansion... AnonMoos 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By special meaning, if you mean Dai al-Mutlaq, then that already has a separate article. And seeing the low level of activity on the Da'i page, I don't think its gonna get expanded too much. In any case, I think we can merge it for the time being, and if and when it gets sufficiently big, it can have its own page. --Bluerain talk 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Dai al-Mutlaq only seems to be relevant to the Tayyibi Musta`li sects of Ismai`ilism in particular, while Da`i was an important title with special meaning for most or all branches of Ismai`ilism. A lot of historical material could be added to the Da`i article about the office of "Da`i" in Ismai`ilism which would not naturally fall under the Dai al-Mutlaq article. AnonMoos 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I could probably go to the university library and look up the multi-volume Encyclopaedia of Islam, and work up enough material for a paragraph or two on "Da`i in Ismai`lism" (as I already did for article Zaher El Omar). No promises on when, though... AnonMoos 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Any more replies? --Bluerain talk 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -- A section on Da'i can be created in the Dawah article, including a mention of the Ismaili meaning. If enough information is added on Ismaili Da'is, at least enough to cover a full-on stub, then it could warrant the new article. At that point a disambiguation page may come into play, pointing to Dawah, Da'i in Ismailism, and Dai al-Mutlaq. The opposing viewpoint proposes preserving the current order so that the Da'i article can eventually cover two topics, one related to Dawah and the other to a particular leadership position, this would be a messier order in my opinion. KriZe 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think its better to have these separate, at least for clarity and organization. Scythian1 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative spellings
How about listing some of the alternative spellings - so far - Dawa'a, dawaa, Da’wa I've found. SmithBlue (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and da'wah. SmithBlue (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative spellings could be useful for researching this topic, but do we need multiple spellings in this article? Is Dawa pronounced any different than Dawah? And does inserting apostrophes left-right-and-center add anything at all? Arabic pronunciation is all well and good, for Arab speakers, but this article is written in English, so pretending to make Arabic sounding words is next to useless.

Missionary
How about we describe du'āt as "the nearest thing Islam has to a missionary" rather than using "the Islam equivalent to a missionary"? Hyacinth (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wouldn't it be better just to say that a Da'āt "is a missionary", or maybe "the Islamic term for a missionaru"? 自教育 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of citation from Sahih Muslim
I deleted article text for being fatuous reasoning which based itself on a source that was weakly cited (no date, no publisher, no translator). The deleted article text read that Islamic scholars explicitly regard "avoiding conflict" as a distinct purpose of dawah. The only source cited to support this claim is a passage which does not actually support the claim, but refers to the exercise of dawah. The passage is not genuinely about the notion of "avoiding conflict" in the vague fullness of that notion, but rather about how armies waging war for the purpose of proselytizing Islam should deal with unbelievers. The relevant part of the passage amounts to saying, "when you are on a military expedition to proselytize, then before you insist on launching battle, proselytize" -- therefore, this is in no way a "distinct purpose of proselytizing". Besides that, since this passage is itself an actual hadith from over 1000 years ago, it is no source at all for a claim that Islamic scholars generally consider that a distinct purpose of proselytizing (dawah), "avoiding conflict", exists. As for the validity and authority of the translation, this translation credited to one "Abdul Hamid Siddiqui" has been posted on several Web sites, without bibliographic details in every case I examined. Hurmata (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the preceding comment of mine. Let's get clear on what the context is of this hadith from the collection called Sahih Muslim. The context is that a Moslem army is invading and conquering. When they encounter the locals, THAT's when they are advised to follow the three stage approach. The precondition to their "offers" is, "we're here to take over and rule you". From there, "we offer you three choices: adopt Islam, get out (of your own country), or pay us forever". And some people call this "conflict avoidance"! Yeah, like when a robber says "give me your money and you won't get hurt"! Notice that if the invaded people convert to Islam, that doesn't mean the Moslem army will withdraw back home. Here in this article, as long as the article contained this outrageous claim that "dawah is seen to have a function of conflict avoidance in Islamic life", we have had a pure example of Islamic imperialism. I've already seen in other Islam related articles contributors insert promotional links and sycophantic text. Hurmata (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sallallahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam
I have deleted the phrase "Sallallahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam" (peace be upon him) used after referencing Muhammad. This is to be in compliance with the NPOV and make the article sound more encyclopedic. ICXCNIKA (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dawah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120919205448/http://irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=54 to http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dawah movements
Why is it that they are all extremely conservative figures and movements that are listed, yet more moderate voices of dawah aren't listed here - all are salafi, fundamentalist, and/or militant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.97.154 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Common Speech?
The quote "I did not send any messenger except that he spoke the language of his people to explain to them." has been added in a section "Common Speech". To me, "Common Speech" could mean "all the messengers spoke had the same language in common", which is probably not the intent here. I think it means that each messenger spoke in the vernacular of the people. Given the importance of Arabic in the propagation of written Islam, I'd suggest a different heading. Maybe "Preach in the vernacular"?

Is this really a notable point?

Rob Burbidge (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Add References
I recommend adding these references to the References section--
 * Arnold, Thomas. 1913. The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith. 2d ed. Constable.
 * Janson, Torsten. 2002. Invitation to Islam: A History of Da'wa. Swedish Science Press.
 * Kuiper, Matthew J. 2021. Da'wa: A Global History of Islamic Missionary Thought and Practice. Edinburgh University Press.
 * Masud, Muhammad Khalid. 1995. "Da'wah: Modern Usage". Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. Oxford University Press.
 * Poston, Larry. 1992. Islamic Da'wah in the West. Oxford University Press.
 * Walker, Paul. 1995. "Da'wah: Qurʾanic Concepts". Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. Oxford University Press.

The Sookhdeo book included in the current list is questionable. It's not scholarly and provides a conspiratorial take on da'wa.

Adding the sources above to the Ref list does not solve the problems with the main article - there are many gaps and it's mostly an insider perspective - but at least it will direct interested readers to solid peer-reviewed published sources.

To "External Links" I would add this: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-0252.xml (a 2018 annotated bibliography of scholarship on da'wa) Hathilub117 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌. The 'References' section is for references that were used in the writing of the article. We don't just add books in there because they're good and related to the topic. - MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I followed the procedure from your earlier note. Why tell me to suggest references under a COI if you already knew that “we don’t just”? Anyway, you might want double check: there are many items in the footnotes that are not in References, and multiple items in the current References that are nowhere footnoted and seem to have played no part in the main article. Hathilub117 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest an improvement to the article, have at it, but we're not going to just list your book. The purpose of this website is to grow encyclopedia articles, not to make lists of books. MrOllie (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)