Is peace most required for spread of Islam? Yes, of course it is, undoubtedly.

[paarsurrey]

Thread open to all human beings whatever religion or no-religion they may belong to , please.
Regards

 

[von bek]

Please explain how peace is required for the spread of Islam. Not really challenging you at this point. Simply curious as to what your argument is.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is true for both of its phases:

1. In the time of Muhammad, the first phase.
2. In the End-Times under Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the truthful successor of Muhammad, the second phase by the name Ahmadiyya just for distinction. Please

Regards

 

[von bek]

But, how is it required?

 

[Acim]

I too am not understanding OP of this thread.

Is it stating that Peace must first be on the planet before Islam can spread to every region? And that the religion will spread and will all live by that religion alone? Or the concept of Islam (submission) will then be spread throughout the world, when Peace has fully come about?

I would think if one has thoughts of conquest and that they alone are equipped to do that, that Islam would be suitable option for them, or for them to submit to Allah and conquest own self before thinking something in the world must change. Being a theist type myself, I would think other theists would recognize that is lifelong consideration and it's highly (highly) unlikely you'll change the world if your own self is still thinking the world needs to change while you are seeking conquest in place of submission. Seeking others to submit (via conversion of some sort) when own self visibly appears to be struggling with own submission. IOW, take plank out of own eye before trying to remove splinter in your neighbor's eye.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If everyone on the planet was successfully subjugated by a single religion, then I suppose you would have peace.

Is that what you're going for?

 

[von bek]

I too am not understanding OP of this thread.

Is it stating that Peace must first be on the planet before Islam can spread to every region? And that the religion will spread and will all live by that religion alone? Or the concept of Islam (submission) will then be spread throughout the world, when Peace has fully come about?

My best guess is that the OP is proposing that the conditions for peace are necessary for the spread of Islam. I can only guess because I have received no real answer to my initial question. Now, I don't really see how it follows that peace is necessary for Islam to spread, or ANY religion for that matter. Maybe with a response from the OP we can begin addressing the point...

 

[von bek]

Time for me to get ready for bed. Working in the morning. Hopefully there will be more here, tomorrow.

 

[LuisDantas]

I may be assuming too much, but I get the vibe that the OP wants to proclaim that Islam would never spread as much as it does were it not peaceful in nature.

If that is what is meant, I must voice by emphatic disagreement. It seems to me that instead it is far more accurate to say that Islam does not dwell much on reflections about what peace is - and most of all, it has a tendency to confuse obedience to authority with peace.

 

[DawudTalut]

Is peace most required for spread of Islam? Yes, of course it is, undoubtedly.

Thread open to all human beings whatever religion or no-religion they may belong to , please.
Regards

Peace be on you.
Possible answers:
1=God sends Messengers/Prophets when disorder reaches to full.....In that sense, like other religions when Islam came, morality-situation was dire, with no peace. Islam began to work out bit by bit, establishing rights of God and rights of people......With this point of view, Peace is not required for spread of any religion. Rather peace has to be in pieces for a new religion to come, like feminine demands rain.

2=Once true religion comes [here Islam], it is started by one person with God's support. This person [say Hazrat Abraham, Hazrat Muhammad, Hazrat Moses, Hazrat Jesus, Hazrat Ahmadiyya-Promised-Messiah, the Covenanted Mahdi (peace and blessing on all)] stands against all mafias of time to eradicate usurp-ness of human rights, evils, immoralities and disbelief on One-God.......and miraculously began to gather initial momentum.

Now in the second stage, a peaceful atmosphere is needed for growth of their spiritual garden. In such conducive environment, the secondary momentum is gained at much faster rate.

3=You mentioned Ahmadiyya in OP, it is interesting to note, when they began in a remote village of India, no one knew, but when orthodox clergies saw their acceptance, they began to pass fatwas and make various barriers like stopping people to go there to meet the Claimant, verdicts of disbelief against them were passed, then various governments joined hands against them.

Today, after only 127 years of inception [from 1889 to 2016], they officially have been established in 209 countries worldwide by the grace of God, while those who tried to stop them either no longer exist or are in quite a bad shape.

Promised Establishment of Security:
Holy Quran
[ch24:v56] Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors (from among) those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security (and peace) after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.

So it is the conditional promise by God, adherence with Khilafat in Islam is compulsory to get security, and believers have to :
1-Have Right faith and
2-Do good deeds

It is two fold: True Khilafat starts peace and develops peace but one has to fulfill above two requirements. It is the reason Ahmadiyya-Muslims are working for peace under Khilafat.

 

[Augustus]

most of all, it has a tendency to confuse obedience to authority with peace.

Is that not the cornerstone of most (if not all) peace?

 

[LuisDantas]

Is that not the cornerstone of most (if not all) peace?

Hardly. Peace comes from respect, which is very different from obedience, and often at odds with it.

 

[Augustus]

Hardly. Peace comes from respect, which is very different from obedience, and often at odds with it.

For some people perhaps, but they are not the ones you most fear breaking the peace. Often peace comes from the respect for the consequences of breaking the peace. I'm not sure that, collectively, we can be peaceful simply out of respect for each other's humanity.

Like with our simian cousins, the level of peace within the troop is related to the degree of authority of the alpha. If he is weak, he will constantly be tested until he asserts his dominance or gets replaced.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

 

[LuisDantas]

For some people perhaps, but they are not the ones you most fear breaking the peace.

I personally very much fear that the people who confuse obedience with respect and/or peace will eventually break the peace.

That is what usually happens, and we all pay dearly for it. There is no substitute for wisdom.

Often peace comes from the respect for the consequences of breaking the peace. I'm not sure that, collectively, we can be peaceful simply out of respect for each other's humanity.

Consequentialism is very often a good thing.

Obedience to authority for obedience's sake, though, tends not to be at all a good thing, except perhaps by happy circunstance or accident.

In essence, it is self-sabotaging.

Like with our simian cousins, the level of peace within the troop is related to the degree of authority of the alpha. If he is weak, he will constantly be tested until he asserts his dominance or gets replaced.

That is true at a tribal level of wisdom. Which is not nearly mature enough for the needs of a world with billions of people. Such a model of peace is inherently self-limiting and entirely insufficient for anything approaching the thousands of people, let alone the billions.

We need to learn better than that. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Sorry, no can do. It will not do to give the people who I need to cooperate with me a reason to never want to.

 

[Augustus]

I personally very much fear that the people who confuse obedience with respect and/or peace will eventually break the peace.

That is what usually happens, and we all pay dearly for it. There is no substitute for wisdom.

I'm not sure there is too much of a correlation between wisdom and peace.

The wise often realise that they sometimes need to fight those not capable of respect.

Consequentialism is very often a good thing.

Obedience to authority for obedience's sake, though, tends not to be at all a good thing, except perhaps by happy circunstance or accident.

In essence, it is self-sabotaging.

It often seems that people are quite willing to give up uncertainty and insecurity for a sense of purpose and fraternity and an obedience to authority though.

It's often a 'good' thing at the individual and group level, and seems to be part of our collective nature.

We are a self-sabotaging species.

That is true at a tribal level of wisdom. Which is not nearly mature enough for the needs of a world with billions of people. Such a model of peace is inherently self-limiting and entirely insufficient for anything approaching the thousands of people, let alone the billions.

We need to learn better than that. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I agree with your point in theory, but I just don't think it is possible given our nature.

If we haven't managed it in 10,000 years then I don't see us suddenly gain such an ability. We are an adaptable species, but not a blank slate.

Sorry, no can do. It will not do to give the people who I need to cooperate with me a reason to never want to.

I was actually meaning at a societal level, rather than individual.

You want to be respected by your allies and feared by your enemies, and you will always have enemies, particularly if you are virtuous.

I think it is equally true at the individual level though. People who want to cooperate with you would never have a reason not to, the threat is only for those who wish you harm.

You're much better off as a nice guy who can fight if needs be, than a nice guy who can't.

 

[YmirGF]

You're much better off as a nice guy who can fight if needs be, than a nice guy who can't.

I tend to agree, Augustus. I don't go looking for fights, and I shy away from physical altercations, but if pressed by someone who will not give up, I like to leave my options open. Afterwards however I will probably reflect long and hard on what brought me to the point of the physical confrontation and what I might do in the future to mitigate such scenarios. I'd also look at ways I had brought it on myself and how I was responsible for the unfortunate turn of events. But yes, walk softly and carry a rather large 2 x 4. (I can count on one hand the number of times this has happened in real life.)

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure there is too much of a correlation between wisdom and peace.

Is that so? Color me surprised.

I don't think there is ever any hope for true peace without a healthy measure of wisdom, myself.

The wise often realise that they sometimes need to fight those not capable of respect.

I'm not sure I agree. But if I did, I would point out that the wiser realise as well that such fights can only lead to disaster.

It often seems that people are quite willing to give up uncertainty and insecurity for a sense of purpose and fraternity and an obedience to authority though.

Yes, that is often true. Deeply disgusting, very nearly nihilistic. But true enough for what it is.

There is little hope for humankind unless we all learn better than that.

It's often a 'good' thing at the individual and group level, and seems to be part of our collective nature.

We are a self-sabotaging species.

Very much so. We do not have to accept that, though. In fact, I don't think we can afford to.

I agree with your point in theory, but I just don't think it is possible given our nature.

Such a nihilistic thing to say.

If we haven't managed it in 10,000 years then I don't see us suddenly gain such an ability. We are an adaptable species, but not a blank slate.

Suddenly, certainly not. Quite on the contrary, it has to be nurtured and developed constantly.

I was actually meaning at a societal level, rather than individual.

Don't you see that you are prescribing courting with calamity?

You want to be respected by your allies and feared by your enemies, and you will always have enemies, particularly if you are virtuous.

That is just not good enough to be believed, even and perhaps particularly if it is somehow true.

I think it is equally true at the individual level though. People who want to cooperate with you would never have a reason not to, the threat is only for those who wish you harm.

Again, you are essentially prescribing suicide by indirect means.

You're much better off as a nice guy who can fight if needs be, than a nice guy who can't.

I can see how that idea could be appealling. I do not think it holds true anyway.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, as Ultron said "I think you're confusing 'peace' with 'quiet'." You can have noisy, joyful peace or quiet unrest.

 

[buddhist]

Indeed, it seems to me that Islam needs more peace within itself.

Perhaps if those within Islam embrace the words of the Lord (Buddha), they may find more peace:

"Tamed, he is supreme among those who tame;
At peace, he is the sage among those who bring peace;
Freed, he is the chief of those who set free;
Delivered, he is the best of those who deliver." - AN 4.23​

 

[Augustus]

Is that so? Color me surprised.

I don't think there is ever any hope for true peace without a healthy measure of wisdom, myself.

I think to be wise you have to accept there is no hope of 'true peace'. There is only harm reduction and the possibility of reducing war.

I'm not sure I agree. But if I did, I would point out that the wiser realise as well that such fights can only lead to disaster.

So you don't agree that tolerating the intolerant ultimately leads to the end of tolerance?

Yes, that is often true. Deeply disgusting, very nearly nihilistic. But true enough for what it is.

There is little hope for humankind unless we all learn better than that.

In my opinion, there is only hope for humankind if we accept it as the reality that exists, and don't chase a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Very much so. We do not have to accept that, though. In fact, I don't think we can afford to.

Again, I think we must. "All it takes for evil to succeed is for the good people to do nothing".

Such a nihilistic thing to say.

The opposite. It is the protection of virtue. We can only create a society worth having if we are prepared to fight for it.

To be clear, I am no believer in universalism. This is not about remaking the world in our own image, but about protecting our societies from those who wish to destroy them. Other societies can decide on their own destiny, insofar as they leave us to do likewise.

I'm a localist, not a globalist. Federations of localised governance allow people best to live in peace. People can live locally in the society that reflects their values, and the Federation allows the collective whole to carry a big enough stick to allow them to do so.

Suddenly, certainly not. Quite on the contrary, it has to be nurtured and developed constantly.

Can I ask how you view the ideal society (in a practical sense). What kind of governance do you think offers the best chance of the most peace?

Don't you see that you are prescribing courting with calamity?

Again, I think the opposite. The stick doesn't bend people to my will, it stops them from bending me to their will.

That is just not good enough to be believed, even and perhaps particularly if it is somehow true.

Can I ask how do you propose dealing with those who hate your virtues?

Again, you are essentially prescribing suicide by indirect means.

I'm proposing refusing to commit suicide by allowing those who wish to subjugate me from being able to do so without fear.

I can see how that idea could be appealling. I do not think it holds true anyway.

Who do you think would be in a better position when threatened in the street, Mike Tyson seeking to avoid violence or Noam Chomsky seeking to avoid violence?