Ислам: различия между версиями
Перейти к навигации
Перейти к поиску
Maqivi (обсуждение | вклад) Нет описания правки |
Maqivi (обсуждение | вклад) Нет описания правки |
||
| Строка 2: | Строка 2: | ||
'''Исла́м''' (араб. ''аль-ислям'' — предание [себя Богу], покорность) — одна из трёх мировых [[религия|религий]]. Последователей ислама называют мусульманами (от араб. ''[[муслим]]'' — покорный [Богу]). Распространён главным образом в странах Ближнего и Среднего Востока, в Северной Африке и Юго-Восточной Азии<!--Фролов-->. Число последователей более 1,8 млрд человек. В 28 государствах ислам является официальной или государственной религией<!--Кузнецов-->. Характерной чертой ислама является его роль социального и культурного регулятора жизни мусульманского общества.<!--Гогоберидзе-->.{{AnswerEnd|№}}{{Превью}} | '''Исла́м''' (араб. ''аль-ислям'' — предание [себя Богу], покорность) — одна из трёх мировых [[религия|религий]]. Последователей ислама называют мусульманами (от араб. ''[[муслим]]'' — покорный [Богу]). Распространён главным образом в странах Ближнего и Среднего Востока, в Северной Африке и Юго-Восточной Азии<!--Фролов-->. Число последователей более 1,8 млрд человек. В 28 государствах ислам является официальной или государственной религией<!--Кузнецов-->. Характерной чертой ислама является его роль социального и культурного регулятора жизни мусульманского общества.<!--Гогоберидзе-->.{{AnswerEnd|№}}{{Превью}} | ||
== В Коране == | |||
Множественное число от слова «мусульманин» [муслимӯн] очень часто встречается в сурах Корана. Слово «ислам» [исля̄м] встречается В Коране только восемь раз. Это слово следует рассматривать в сочетании с довольно распространённым употреблением глагола ''асляма'' в двух значениях, которые сливаются одно в другое: «предание себя Богу» (внутреннее действие) и «исповедание ислама», то есть приверженность посланию пророка Мухаммада {{сас}}. | |||
В трёх аятах Корана подчёркивается внутреннее качество ислама: {{hqa11|Кого Аллах желает наставить на прямой путь, тому Он раскрывает грудь для ислама, а кого Он желает ввести в заблуждение, тому Он сдавливает и сжимает грудь, словно тот забирается на небо|6:125}}; {{hqa11|Кто же может быть несправедливее того, кто измышляет ложь об Аллахе, когда его призывают к исламу?|61:7}}; {{hqa11|Разве тот, чью грудь Аллах раскрыл для ислама, кто на свету от своего Господа, равен неверующему?|39:22}}. | |||
В трёх аятах Корана подчёркивается связь между исламом и понятием ''дӣн''. В данном контексте, безусловно, уместно переводить слово ''дӣн'' как «религия», не забывая при этом о долге перед Богом, который оно подразумевает: {{hqa11|Сегодня Я ради вас усовершенствовал вашу религию, довел до конца Мою милость к вам и одобрил для вас в качестве религии ислам|5:3}}; {{hqa11|Воистину, религией у Аллаха является ислам|3:19}}; {{hqa11|От того, кто ищет иную религию помимо ислама, это никогда не будет принято, и в Последней жизни он окажется среди потерпевших урон|3:85}}. | |||
Действие, которым оперирует ислам, предполагает «возвращение» к Богу [таўба], то есть обращение. В Коране говорится об «обращении в ислам» — чтобы осудить неверие (куфр) тех, кто тем не менее исповедовал веру {{hqa0|9:74}}. Точно так же осуждается самодовольство бедуинов, которые хвастаются своим исламом, «как если бы это было одолжением с их стороны». Всевышний Аллах приказал сказать своему пророку: {{hqa11|Не попрекайте меня вашим обращением в ислам. Это Аллах оказал вам милость тем, что привел вас к вере, если вы вообще говорите правду|44:17}}. Чуть раньше в аяте {{hqa5|49:14}} проводилось чёткое различие между исламом и иманом: {{hqa11|Бедуины сказали: «Мы уверовали». Скажи: «Вы не уверовали. Посему говорите: «Мы покорились». Вера еще не вошла в ваши сердца}}. | |||
<!-- | |||
2.— Some ḥadīt̲h̲s . | |||
In the collections of ḥadīt̲h̲s the emphasis, in defining islām , will be placed upon submission to God, expressed by deeds: above all, the prescribed acts of worship, including adoration of the One God, but also the k̲h̲ayrāt , “good works”. Thus, by way of example: in al-Buk̲h̲ārī. ii, 37 ( ḥadīt̲h̲ of Gabriel), after defining īmān by its content (“to believe in God, in His angels, in the future life, in the prophets, in the resurrection”), the Prophet, in reply to the question “What is islām?”, replies: “islām is to adore God without associating anything with Him, to observe the ritual prayer ( ṣalāt ), to pay zakāt , to fast during the month of Ramaḍān ” (similar text in Muslim). But it is also “to give food (to the hungry) and to give the greeting of peace ( salām ) to those one knows, just as to those one does not know” (al-Buk̲h̲ārī, ii, 5). And the best islām will be that of the Muslim of whom one has to “fear neither the hand nor the tongue” (ibid., 4). | |||
The Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal (iii, 134; cf. A. J. Wensinck, op. cit., 23) states: “islām is external, faith belongs to the heart”. The act of “surrender to God” is therefore expressed by holding fast to the ritual observances and social behaviour prescribed by the religious Law. God alone judges men’s hearts, and hence the reality of faith; the judgement of men may concern itself with islām. The “science of fiḳh” has been called maḳām al-islām by the Ṣūfīs. | |||
3.—The relations between islām and imān . | |||
The essential question of a theological order, which was discussed at a very early time and upon which the schools of fiḳh and kalām were divided, was that of the distinction or non-distinction between islām and faith, and of their connection. The answers will depend upon the view taken of each of these concepts. We shall not go again into the question of the various definitions of īmān [q.v.]. Here, very briefly, are the principal positions adopted. | |||
a). The Muʿtazilī schools, who identify faith and prescribed works, similarly identify faith with islām: it being clearly understood that the right intention, the niyya , is necessary for the validity of the deed —“actions are valid only through the intentions,” says the ḥadīt̲h̲ (al-Buk̲h̲ārī, ii, 41). Whoever commits a grave transgression of the prescriptions of the Law loses the status of muʾmin and Muslim, and reverts to the status of kufr according to the Ḵh̲ārid̲j̲īs, to an “intermediate status” (between faith and unbelief) according to the Muʿtazdlīs. | |||
b). Many Ḥanafīs (Ḥanafī-Māturīdīs) similarly consider islām and īmān to be synonymous, but define each of them essentially as verbal confession ( iḳrār ), sometimes linking this with intimate adherence, or at other times, following the Murd̲j̲iʾīs, with knowledge of the heart, or both of these. The Ḥanafī-Māturīdī texts of the Fiḳh Akbar I (doubtless 2nd/8th century) and of the Waṣiyyat Abī Ḥanīfa (3rd/9th century) ignore the question. Towards the end of the 4th/10th century, however, the Fiḳh Akbar II was to draw an at least nominal distinction. It was to state (a. 18) that current language distinguishes between īmān and islām, and that islām is defined as “total surrender ( taslīm ) and total obedience ( inḳiyād ) to the divine commandments”. The text adds: “there is no faith whatever without islām, and islām could not exist without faith; the one and the other are like the outside and the inside [“back and belly”, in ¶ the literal translation of A. J. Wensinck]; and religion ( dīn ) is a name which covers both of them, and all the commandments of the Law”. Here then īmān is as it were the inner, hidden reality of islām, from which it could not be separated. | |||
c). In its definition of faith, the Ḥanbalī line insists upon affirmation by the tongue ( ḳawl ) and by deeds ( aʿmāl ), either with or without the addition, according to the texts, of adherence of the heart ( taṣdīḳ ). So much so that al-Barbahārī (d. 329/941) was to say, according to the Ṭabaḳāt al-Ḥanābila : “We cannot testify to the reality of the faith in a man so long as he does not carry out the totality of the laws of islām” (quoted by H. Laoust, La profession de foi d’Ibn Baṭṭa , Damascus 1958, 82, n. I). Islam in the sense of observance becomes the guarantee of faith. The Ḥanbalīs however were to remain faithful to the text of the Musnad cited above, and to the ʿAḳida VI of Ibn Ḥanbal, who affirms the distinction between islām and īmān. Accordingly, in the 4th/10th century, Ibn Baṭṭa returns to the Ḳurʾān, XLIX, 14 and affirms: “The term islām does not have the same meaning as the term īmān. Islām is a word which denotes the community of religion ( milla ), and īmān is a word which expresses an adherence of faith (taṣdīḳ)” (from the translation of H. Laoust, op. cit., 50/82). The choice of milla, and not dīn, in this text is characteristic: islām is “religion”, no longer solely in the sense of a debt due to God, but in the sense of a “religious community” attached and connected to a prophet (cf. below). Thus, in the 4th/10th century, we find the use of islām to denote the Muslim religion as an organized and differentiated religion. A century la ter, Ibn ʿAḳīl in the same way was to make islām obedience to the commandments of God. But he who commits à great transgression “does not lose his status of muʾmin to become merely Muslim, for islām forms part of īmān” (G. Makdisi. Ibn ʿAqīl et la résurgence de l’Islam traditionaliste au XI e siècle , Damascus 1963, 527). | |||
d). The As̲h̲ʿarīs and the S̲h̲āfiʿī jusrists also made a distinction between islām and īmān. After defining faith as words and deeds, and then by its content according to the “ḥadīt̲h̲ of Gabriel”, al-As̲h̲ʿarī, in the credo of the Maḳālāt al-Islāmiyyīn (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Cairo n.d., i, 322, identifies islām with the two constituent parts of the s̲h̲ahāda , in other words with the verbal testimony which grants admission to the Community of the Prophet, and concludes: “islām is different from īmān”. The credo of the Ibāna (ed. Cairo 1348, 10), without defining islām, states that it is “wider than faith” and specifies “that all islām is not faith”. If we compare these views with the text of the Lumaʿ which above all regards faith as inner adherence (huwa taṣdīḳ, bi-llāh cf. R. J. McCarthy, The Theology of al-As̲h̲ʿarī , Beirut 1953, 75/104), we understand that the later As̲h̲ʿarīs were able to claim that islām, the observance of the prescriptions ordained by the Law, and above all the explicit profession of the s̲h̲ahāda, can be “practised” without faith, and that faith (inner taṣdīḳ) can exist without islām (here contradicting the Ḥanbalī line, for whom every believer is a Muslim). But islām without faith is the way of hypocrites ( munāfiḳūn ), consigned to God’s chastisement; faith without islām need not be culpable, in the event of some invincible external obstacle; it would become so if the testimony to islām was not given through cowardice, weakness or half-heartedness. It would then be a fault not of unbelief (kufr) but of grave prevarication ( fisḳ ).— When he summarizes the S̲h̲āfiʿī theses (which he contrasts with the identification madeby the Ḥanafīs), ¶ al-Ḏj̲urd̲j̲ānī says that “ islām is the verbal profession of faith without the agreement of the heart, while faith is the agreement of the heart and the tongue” ( Taʿrīfāt , ed. Flügel, Leipzig 1845, 23).—This thesis was later to be generally accepted. | |||
Whatever definition of faith might be proposed, it remains true however, for the Ḥanbalīs and the As̲h̲ʿarīs alike, that īmān and islām, without becoming identical, imply one another. Islām , says H. Laoust in summarizing the philosophy of Ibn Taymiyya ( Contribution à une étude de la méthodologie canonique de (...) Ibn Taimīya , Cairo 1939, 74, n. 3), is the “external and so to speak social application of the Law”, and īmān in the “interiorization of islām”. (Thus once again, despite the difference of the conceptions involved, we corne across “the outside” and “the inside”, ẓahr and baṭn , of the Fiḳh Akbar II ). —An outline of the most usual teaching is provided in the 19th century by the As̲h̲ʿarī al-Bād̲j̲ūrī ( Ḥās̲h̲iya ... ʿalā Ḏj̲awharat al-tawḥid , ed. Cairo 1352/1934, 28-9), who says: “Īmān and islām are different in their significance but not in truth, that is to say in the subjects (who profess them) ... But it is a question here of faith which assures salvation, and of islām also, otherwise there would be no reciprocal connection”. The same nuances occur in the 20th century, for example in the Ḥayāt Muḥammad of Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal (Cairo 1358/1939, 506).—It should be noted finally that only certain As̲h̲ʿarīs and S̲h̲āfʿīs applied the term muʾmin , but not Muslim, to the man who has faith in his heart and who dies without having been able to profess islām. In general, it was considered preferable to call him Muslim, not before men but in the eyes of God. | |||
4.—The “world of islām” . | |||
In this way, therefore, islām is “to give oneself unconditionally to God” (G. Makdisi, op. cit., 324); so much so that, as the yanballs were to take pleasure in saying, “the religion of all the prophets is islām”. Abraham, Moses and Jésus are true muslimūn . But it is the “seal of the prophecy”, manifested in the Ḳurʾān, which was to “perfect the religion”. According to the first part of a much quoted ḥadīt̲h̲ , “the best of all things is islām; the foundation of islām is the ritual prayer” and, with the ṣalāt , all the other obligations ( ʿibādāt ) prescribed by the Law. Now, it is the observance of the Law, its “external and so to speak social application” (H. Laoust), which is the binding force of the Community of the Prophet. And so wherever the ḳurʾānic prescriptions are observed communally, there islām will be; such will be “the lands of islām ( bilād al-islām ), “the world, the house, of islām” ( dār al-islām ). | |||
Such expressions are traditional. It was in this way that, at the beginning of the 5th/11th century, al-Māwardī examined the various categories into which the bilād al-islām are divided ( al-Aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya , beginning of chap. xiv, ed. Cairo. n.d., 151 ff.). The implication remains that islām, practised in this way, is the testimony, rendered socially, to faith in the One God and to free adherence to the prophetie mission of Muḥammad. The Ḥanafī Sibṭ Ibn al-Ḏj̲awzī (d. 654/1256) in his Mirʾāt al-zamān mentioned the “purchased” conversions of Jews and Christians, which the As̲h̲ʿarīs sought to make in Bag̲h̲dād in the 5th/11th century, and he repeats the protests of the supporters of the s̲h̲arīf Abū Ḏj̲aʿfar, a Ḥanbalī: “This is the islām of gifts, not the islām of conviction” (quoted by G. Makdisi, op. cit., 356). Abū Ḥamid al-G̲h̲azālī was similarly to question the degree of validity of a forced conversion to islām. | |||
“There is no compulsion in religion” (Ḳurʾān, II, ¶ 256), and “religion, in the eyes of God, is in truth islām” (III, 19). Even in the writings of those who distinguish most sharply between īmān and islām, at no time will this reference to inner conviction be found absent. But the point of first importance, for the jurist who is studying and formulating the statutes and laws of the bilād al-islām, is not so much the degree of invidual interiorization of the muḳābal of reciprocal relationship islām-īmān , as the communal observance of those prescriptions which make islām, those s̲h̲aʿāʾir al-islām “the blazon of Islam” (L. Massignon), which are symbolized by the banners of the imāms , the guides of the Community. | |||
This is so true that a synonym of dār al-islām was to be dār al-ʿadl “the world of justice”, in which “the rights of God and of men”, ordained by the Ḳurʾān are observed and protected. On the other hand there was to be the dār al-kufr “world of unbelief”, which is the dār al-ḥarb “world of war”. The jurists analyse the circumstances in which it can become “obligatory” to abandon the dār al-kufr in order to enter the dār al-islām or at least the dār al-ṣulḥ , which has concluded a treaty of “reconciliation” with the dār al-islām.—Anyone who describes himself as a Muslim means to affirm thereby not so much his care for the practice and personal observances (although certainly not neglecting such matters) as for adherence to a Community of those who acknowledge the Ḳurʾān and Muḥammad. It is here perhaps, far more than in any “sacral” conception of the political organization, that this specifie spiritual-temporal fusion of the Muslim City has its root. | |||
5.—From islām to Islam. | |||
In European languages, it has become custemary to speak of Islam to denote the whole body of Muslim peoples, countries, and states, in their socio-cultural or political as well as in their religious sphere. And it is in a similar sense that modern Arabic often uses al-islām . What connection does this very general meaning retain or not retain with the etymological significance of the word, and its évocation of “surrender to God” ? | |||
This question, an important one if we wish to avoid misconceptions and misunderstandings, has been discussed recently in a well-documented and apposite manner by Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith in The Meaning and End of Religion (New York 1964, chap. iv “The special case of Islam”, 75-108). As the author indicates, it is only recently (19th-20th centuries) that Islam has incontestably become the chosen term to signify both a religion and a politico-social area (fortunately replacing “Mohammedanism” “Islamism” and other such terms). Religious and cultural history thereby adopts the very name by which the bilād al-islām designate themselves, as with a title of honour. And it is merely since the beginning of the igth century, probably under the influence of Western ideas, that writers in Arabic have employed it in an equivalent way. | |||
W. Cantwell Smith emphasises, by reference to Brockelmann’s Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur , that this term islām, though comparatively rare in the Ḳurʾān, with the passage of time appears more and more frequently in the titles of works in Arabic. In the classical period (the Western Middle Ages) it was already used more commonly than īmān, and often in correlation with niẓām , System, organization; in the 19th century, the relative figures for īmān and islām are 7% and 93% respectively. It is this that Prof. Cantwell Smith calls “reification in Islam”. The emphasis thus appears to be placed on Islam as the organization and self-defence of the Community which is its expression, and much less on the inner ¶ Personal values which the etymology of the word connotes. It appears however that our present brief examination of the use of islām according to Muslim formulations and usage itself may suggests a few remarks here, which do not invalidate, but which limit and qualify the slightly different perspective of Prof. Cantwell Smith. | |||
a). If it strue that islām signifies primarily the action and state of the man who surrenders himself totally (to God), nevertheless it would be errcneous to regard it, in this etymological sense, as a kind of synonym for tawakkul bi-llāh , the (interiorized) “abandoning” of oneself entirely into the hands of God. As the Ḳurʾān understands the word, islām is indeed, as the Fiḳh Akbar II says, a surrender ( taslīm ) to the divine Will as expressed by the ḳurʾānic teaching, and an obedience ( inḳiyād ) to His commandments; and, by this very means, admission to the Community, “the best to have arisen among men” (Ḳurʾān, III, no). Quite soon, admission to the Community was to be the aspect preferred. If the requisite inner attitude does not correspond to it, there is some grave individual failing ( fiṣk ), there is no abandonment of islām. | |||
b). Prof. Cantwell Smith observes that, in the classical age, the diversity of religious beliefs was to express itself by milal rather than by adyān . But we have already noted that the Ḥanbalī Ibn Baṭṭa, in the 4th century, defined islām as a milla , hence a community, the Community of Muḥammad. The difference between dīn and milla, al-Ḏj̲urd̲j̲ānī said ( Taʿrifāt , iii), is that “dīn relates to God, and milla to the Prophet”. | |||
c). The Ḳurʾān however defines islām as religion, dīn (III, 19; V, 3); but not as a religion, Prof. Cantwell Smith justly notes. The plural of dīn, adyān, he further notes, does not occur in the Ḳurʾān. But if the religion, al-dīn , which renders to God that which is due to Him, is indeed islām, it is, through that very fact, millat al-nabī and ummat al-nabī. For the Muslim, Islam is not one religion among others, it is the religion, and the other religions ( al-adyān ) are such only in so far as they participate in Islam. Each prophet sent from God has his milla; but the dīn is unique, accomplished by surrender to God and obedience—the very definition of islām— already lived by the prophets that preceded it, and expressed accordingly to all its needs by the “seal” of the revelation, the Ḳurʾān. | |||
We do not think that these various connotations are absent from the Muslim works of the contemporary period. To take one example only, we find them in the Risālat al-tawḥīd of Muḥammad ʿAbduh. “The religion of Islam, or Islam”, says ʿAbduh, “is the religion brought by Muḥammad” (Cairo 1353, 152). And the whole final section of the Risāla constantly speaks in this sense of Islam, its principles, its spirit and its extension in the world (ibid., 152-206, French trans., Paris 1925, 104-40). As soon as the ummat al-nabī began to expand in space and time in the face of other religious communities, what Prof. Cantwell Smith calls “reification” was found to be inscribed in the original fundamental data. Historical realities on the one hand, and the progress of the phenomenology of religions on the other, have not ceased to confront Muslim thought with this twofold fact: the existence of non-Muslim religions, established in their faith and their ritual observances, and, moreover, the uncertain faith and the failure to “practise” by certain men who none the less continue to invoke the help of the umma . Hence the anxiety to defend Islam as a religion and a community, while nevertheless the old Ḥanbalī and As̲h̲ʿarī distinction ¶ between īmān and islām is repeated and emphasized. | |||
But this distinction, however generally admitted it may be, is in no way intended to justify the proclamation of islām by one who denies īmān or who even does not bother to appreciate the true values of faith. Those who are Muslims simply through having heard the call of Islam, or because they were born of Muslim parents, but who do not have faith in their hearts, then, according to what Muḥammad ftusayn Haykal more or less says (loc. cit.), their islām is feeble and sickly. Only those who seek for a sincere faith ( īmān ṣādiḳ ) hear the call to Islām with regard to God alone. | |||
At the present time there are three meanings of the word islām says Prof. Cantwell Smith (op. cit., 107): 1) the immediate existential meaning of personal surrender of oneself entirely to God; 2) the empirical reality of the “world of Islam”, as it exists sociologically; 3) the ideal Muslim community—“a concrete historical ideal” we would gladly say—as it must tend towards its realization. These three meanings in fact remain closely bound together in Muslim thought, today as in the past, and no study of Islam, no analysis of the Muslim Community or of the world of Islam should separate them. | |||
Bibliography | |||
in the article. | |||
(L. Gardet) | |||
ii.—Diffusion of Islam | |||
In our present state of knowledge, the diffusion of Islam can only be studied in broad outline. In the first place, with regard to numbers, we often have to be content with approximations; nor should it be forgotten that, with the world population increasing at an accelerated pace, even the most accurate statistics prove to be out of date within a few years. Moreover it sometimes happens that in certain countries Muslims and non-Muslims adopt different sets of figures, particularly when these figures serve as the basis for political claims or considerations of honour. In the second place, such figures do not reflect the qualitative aspect of this diffusion. It is possible for conversions on a massive scale to be produced within the space of a few years (as in the case of the Galla tribes in Ethiopia, to the west of Harar, in about 1930-50). But it must not be forgotten that, for these conversions, the way had sometimes been prepared over a long period, by a whole process of maturing and by f avourable circumstances which, in themselves, cannot be statistically expressed. | |||
A.—General Survey. | |||
The diffusion of Islam has been the consequence of a certain number of factors which are more or less easily discernable; over and above the particular attraction this religious movement has exerted upon men, the personality of its first leaders and the economic circumstances of Arabia at the time, among other things, there is a further point which requires to be examined—the part played by wars. Even if, in the vast majority of cases, the conquered remained free not to change their religion, the introduction by force of arms of a Muslim régime which took upon itself the administration of their country represented the first stage of a process which was bound to end in their gradual conversion. | |||
The conquest itself was not brought about suddenly. It was often achieved in waves, with ebb and flow, but it was governed by a tide which, save in Europe, proved to be rising ever higher. Thus Damascus, reached as early as 13/634 by reconnaissance units, was attacked and conquered much later; recaptured by the Byzantines, it finally fell into the Arabs’ hands ¶ in 636. Similarly Tunisia, wlicru a first raid in 26/647 was followed by a respite of more than twenty years before the final conquest and the founding of Ḳayrawān (50/670). So too Transoxiana to which, after an initial invasion in 52-4/672-4, the Arabs returned at the beginning of the following century; or Chinese Turkestān, reached in 93/713, and to which they returned in 133/751 Kābūl in Afg̲h̲ānistān was reached by the end of the 1st/7th century, without being occupied, and two centuries were to pass before the Muslims came back in strength to stay. Muslim warfare had been a war of movement, a war of wide spaces, steppes or deserts. | |||
The first period of expansion extends from the death of Muḥammad to the end of the Umayyad caliphate of Damascus. One century was enough for the Muslims to achieve an extraordinary epic feat. The dynamism of the new community combined with favourable circumstances to allow their success. The weakness of the Persians and the Byzantines after decades of war between them, their exhaustion, which caused them to underestimate the newcomers’ strength, the internal conditions within the Roman empire of Byzantium which was then in difficulties, with its territory being engulfed by the barbarian invasions, the resentment of the various peoples ruled by Byzantium, the divisions among the Christians, all these considerations worked in favour of the Muslims. But the new fact, as compared with the multiple barbarian invasions of the time, is that the barbarians were assimilated by the countries they conquered, whereas Islam on the contrary imposed itself upon the old civilizations. The most remarkable point about the diffusion of Islam is not so much the fact of the conquests as that of their permanence. When Islam became the religion of a territory, it never thereafter ceased to be so, except in Europe (and even then under armed pressure), and except in the centre and south of India, where many of the Hindu sultanates were revived after the first Muslim conquests. | |||
In this way, we can trace the conquests of Syria-Palestine (13/634-19/640), Egypt 18/639-22/642), the Maghrib (49/699-85/705), Spain and Narbonnese Gaul 92/711-85/705), and, in the east, of ʿIrāḳ (15/636-20/641), Armenia and then Iran (21/642), as far as Transoxiana and Chinese Turkestān. The river Indus was reached in 91-4/710-3, but these advanced positions were afterwards abandoned. | |||
In the direction of Byzantium, which was besieged without success, the Muslim advance was blocked in Asia Minor where a state of flux for long prevailed. | |||
In East Africa, colonies of Muslim merchants are recorded at a very early date at trading dépôts on the shores of the Indian Ocean. | |||
Under the ʿAbbāsids, these conquests were rounded off with the capture of Mediterranean islands such as the Balearics and Sicily. But, most important, Muslim culture was gradually taking shape, increasing the spread of Islam, and the populations, while left free to retain their faith, little by little adhered to the new religion, the religion of the ruling class and of the new society. In Spain, however, Islam was confronted by the Reconquest, which started early and eventually culminated in the fali of Granada in 1492. | |||
Everywhere else, however, expansion continued, sometimes by force of arms, sometimes by peaceful proselytism. Towards the year 1000, the first stage in the conquest of India began: finally the whole Ganges valley was conquered in about 488/1192-606/1209. Various raids during the 8th/14th century ¶ sueeeeded iu bringiug alinost the whole peniusula under the domination of the Muslims. They were however obliged to withdraw from many regions, especially in the centre and south. Islam came to Indonesia by way of a Muslim centre situated in the north-west of Sumatra, at the end of the 7th/13th century; in the 8th/14th century, Java was governed by Muslim rulers. | |||
In sub-Saharan West Africa, it was shortly after the year 1000 that Islam was established. There is mention of a Muslim prince at the head of the Sonraīs at Gao on the Niger as early as 400/1009-10. Islamic rulers are found at Kanem (north of Lake Chad) in about 473/1081-90/1097. Little by little, Muslim kingdoms appeared (in particular Mali, in the 7th/13th I century); but their Islam was still a religion of the court of the warlike or literate aristocracies, which had no contact with the masses. It was later, with the military activities (especially of the Eulanis) and the activities of the brotherhoods that the islamization of the masses was brought about, during the 18th and 19th centuries. Under colonial rule the process of conversion was extended still further. | |||
In East Africa, Islam began to spread from Zaylaʿ (a port situated opposite Aden) a centre of islamization even in the 6th/12th century. Climbiug up to assail the high Ethiopian plateaux, where they never succeeded in gaining a real foothold, the Muslims established themselves firmly in the less elevated regions to the east and south (especially in Harar). | |||
In the Nile valley, the Christian kingdoms of Nubia held out uiitil the 8th/9th-14th/16th centuries, when they disappeared. The islamization of Nilotic Sudan was followed by that of the minor kingdoms situated between the Nile and Chad. In the 18th century, Islam came to predominance to the south of the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, except ouly in the Ethiopian Highlands. | |||
Along the Gulf of Guinea, the impenetrable equatorial forest—even when not infested with tsetse flies— for a long time halted the shepherds who were the Muslim conquerors of the territory. But with the modern age the situation has changed. With the conversion of a section of the Yorubas (near Lagos) and penetration into other tribes hitherto reputed to be impossible to convert, with the movements of populations characteristic of countries today, this forest no longer forms a boundary, and many Muslims intermingle with the inhabitants of the coastal towns. | |||
The commercial centres on the African coast of the Indian Ocean, which remained isolated in their world of business transactions, gradually became stronger (especially in the 4th/10th century). But it was in the 19th and 20th centuries that they became centres of islamization; the suppression of siavery and the opening of the hinterland had swept away the barriers that confined them to their trading-ports. Consequently there has been a considerable, though recent, advance by Islam in these zones during the last half-century (Kenya, Tanzania and evôn to the eastern Congo). | |||
In all these conquered lands in Asia or Africa, or in all the sultanates ruled by Muslims, a special world was created, the Muslim world, where life, art and thought were marked by Islam, even though many traces of the past still survived. The simple imposition of a foreign political framework was very quickly followed by the adoption inwardly of Muslim values. | |||
Finally, to conclude this general survey, it should be noted that the attack launched by the Ottoman Turks finally, in 1453, swept away the barrier of ¶ Constantinople. Europe was invaded as far as Vienna which was twice besieged, in 1529 and 1683, though without success. The ebb then followed, partieularly in the 19th century and at the start of the 20th. | |||
B.—Present characteristics. | |||
If we attempt to trace on a modern map the distribution of Muslims throughout the world, it becomes apparent that Islam is a religion which is almost confined to Asia and Africa. The only exceptions to this rule are some millions of Muslims in Turkey in Europe and in the Balkans, migrant and transient workers in western Europe, and immigrants in North and South America. | |||
In the countries where Christian minorities remain, as well as in pagan countries, Islam is making progress, above all because, in order to be truly integra ted into Muslim society, it is necessary to be a Muslim. Since this integration alone permits certain marriages, the proportion of the conversions to Islam undertaken on the occasion of marriages is very high. This integration also facilitates the finding of employment and advancement to higher posts. In certain countries, questions of social castes sometimes enter, since conversions take place partieularly in certain strata of the population. But however that may be, in view of the simplicity of the Muslim dogma which places man face to face with God the Creator and Providence, and in view too of the aspect of fraternity which Islam presents to the newcomer (especially when he is received into a brotherhood), man’s fundamental religious sense is satisfied. Thus the step to be taken does not deter anyone who is no longer greatly attached to his old religion. | |||
Tolerance for ancient customs has also played a part in many countries, since Islam requires merely a profession of faith for a convert to be able to enter the community. Then, little by little, islamization has been effected in depth. Moreover, Muslim society, which gave the new member the satisfaction of belonging to a vast community covering the entire world, with its own military, cultural, religious and political renown, has always exerted effective control over him. While leaving those who served it very free, from the moment they made their profession of faith, it has always been at pains to protect its members from any possible proselytism and, above all, to prevent them from leaving Islam once they have adopted it. Until recently, the apostate was put to death; even now, proselytism is still strongly disapproved, and the man who deserts Islam cuts himself off from his own people, save in exceptional cases, even though modern jurists no longer authorize the death penalty for apostasy. | |||
Paradoxically, among the features which have favoured the expansion of Islam during these last decades must be included colonial occupation. In many cases the occupying powers relied on Muslim elements possessing a higher degree of civilization than the pagans, in the countries where these still survived. Alternatively, it placed without discrimination under the same legal System inspired by Islam, both Muslims and those who were neither Muslim nor Christian. In the same way, by destroying the tribal framework of African paganism, colonialism created the great numbers of rootless people who have found in Islam a justification for social existence. All the more since Islam has presented itself as a native religion, not as a colonial importation, while the difference in the standard of living, so obvious in the case of Christians newly arrived from Europe, did not arise between Muslims and pagans, who all sprang from the same soil. Peace too has assisted the movement ¶ of preachers or merchants belonging to brotherhoods. | |||
In Black Africa, the ḳurʾānic schools have been centres of Muslim expansion, both through the scope they have given for zeal to have effect, and also through the number of future propagators of Islam who have been formed there. The poverty of the material equipment in the great majority of these establishments, like that of the curricula, must not be misinterpreted. Thanks to these, the values which the children there have learnt to respect, above all the sense of dedication and pride in belonging to the Muslim community, have profoundly marked whole regions. The story of David and Goliath is repeated in these schools in the triumph of poor resources. At the present time, incidentally, in many Muslim countries the official school has replaced the ḳurʾānic school. | |||
The conditions affecting the expansion of Islam are extremely variable, according to the countries concemed, and we should not make any attempt to systematize them. There are large organizations working through pamphlets (like the Aḥmadiyya in Pakistan); there is the sending out of teachers and preachers; there is a whole System of instruction by radio. But the Muslim missionary apparatus is infinitely less cumbrous than that of the Christians. It is the natives of the country concerned who open schools, after having been sometimes (though not always) educated at centres abroad. It is the Muslims themselves, especially the merchants, who bear the chief responsibility for the missions. Finally, the brotherhoods have played a very great part in this movement. But whatever the differences, it is striking to observe wherever Islam is established, the same pride in the community, with as a consequence a certain number of common basic attitudes, affecting the manner of life and thought. This pride and its consequences, by favouring a certain impermeability to foreign influences, have been powerful weapons in resistance to colonialism. | |||
For some thirty years, the Muslim world has been evolving very rapidly. Universities have been founded [see d̲j̲āmiʿa ]. The instability of the world economy has made itself felt everywhere. Travels and contacts have multiplied. Socialism has changed the face of many societies. But, above all, Islam has adopted modern methods of communication— pamphlets, radio, relevision, etc. The number of people who listen on their transistors to sermons in Ramaḍān is now vast. | |||
C.—Statistical outline. | |||
Basing themselves on the figures for world population valid in about 1960, some good authors priva tely estima ted that there might be 435 million Muslims in the world. At the present time, with the increase in population, they now exceed 500 millions. | |||
The figures which follow will indicate a total based upon the statistics for the populations of individual countries (in 1966), as centained in the UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1967). After that, the article will provide details, so far as it is possible to do so, of the proportion of Muslims within the different countries. Figures given without further details signify the number in terms of thousands . | |||
1.—Africa | |||
(perhaps 130 million Muslims out of 318 million inhabitants). | |||
a) Arabic speaking Africa (perhaps 70 million Muslims) | |||
Morocco 13,451 (Muslims only) | |||
—Mauritania 1,070 | |||
—Algeria 12,102 (total population) | |||
—Tunisia 4,458 (id.) | |||
—Libya 1,676 (id.) | |||
¶ | |||
—E.A.R. (Egypt) 30,083, two million of whom are Christian | |||
—Sudan (Khartoum) 13.940, 70% of whom are Muslim | |||
b) Africa south of the Sahara , excluding the Sudan (perhaps 60 million Muslims) | |||
—Somalia 2,580, of whom 99% are Muslim | |||
—Nigeria 58,600 (?), of whom 43% are Muslim | |||
—Ethiopia 23,000 (?), of whom 40 to 50% are Muslim | |||
—Senegal 3,490, of whom 75% are Muslim | |||
—Niger 3,433, of whom 72% are Muslim | |||
—Mali 4,654, of whom 65% are Muslim | |||
—Guinea 3,608, of whom 62% are Muslim | |||
—Chad 3,361, of whom 55% are Muslim | |||
—Upper Volta 4,955, of whom 26% are Muslim | |||
—Tanzania 10,717, of whom 23% are Muslim | |||
—Ghana 7,945, of whom 20% are Muslim | |||
—Cameroon 5,350, of whom 20% are Muslim | |||
—Kenya 9,643, of whom 10% are Muslim | |||
Smaller numbers of Muslims are found in the following countries, in which they represent respectively the proportion of the population as indicated: | |||
—Sierra Leone 33%, Gambia 73%, Portuguese Guinea 26%, Ivory Coast 25%, Dahomey 15%, Libéria 15%, Mozambique 11%, Malawi 7%, Botswana 5%, Togo 5%. Eisewhere the proportion is still smaller. | |||
N.B. A better knowledge of the countries to the south of the Sahara made it possible, in about 1945, to assert the existence of numerous isolated pagan communities in regions thought to be wholly islamized (certain zones of Chad, North Cameroon, North Nigeria). Since then, a movement has been started among these pagans for conversion to Islam; in north-western Nigeria, this was vigorously supported by the political authorities, in the years preceding the disturbances of 1965. | |||
For Nigeria, the reader will note a very clearly marked break in the rate of growth of population. As, until 1952, this was following a regular increasing curve, the figures given since that date correspond with an acceleration which requires to be explained before it can be accepted. | |||
For Ethiopia, to which Eritrea has since been added, the Annuaire du Monde Musulman , 1954, accepts only half the figure officially given (cf. p. 389). | |||
2.— Asia (perhaps 390 million Muslims out of 1,868 million inhabitants) | |||
a) Arab countries of Asia (perhaps 29 million Muslims), the principal centres being: | |||
—Saudi Arabia 6,870 | |||
—Yemen 5,000 | |||
—Irak 8,338, of whom 95% are Muslim | |||
—Syria 5,450, of whom 88% are Muslim | |||
—Lebanon 2,460, of whom 50% are Muslim | |||
—Jordan 2.040, of whom 92% are Muslim | |||
b) Islam in the USSR, 30 million (?) Muslims | |||
c). Islam in the Middle East (perhaps 72 million Muslims), in | |||
—Turkey 31,880, of whom 99% are Muslim | |||
—Iran 25,781, of whom 98% are Muslim | |||
—Afghanistan 15,960 (almost all Muslim). | |||
d) Islam in Pakistan , India, Ceylon and Burma (perhaps 145 million Muslims), the two major groups being | |||
—Pakistan 105,044, of whom 86% are Muslim | |||
—India 498,680, of whom perhaps 11% are Muslim | |||
e). Islam in China , 15 million (?) Muslims | |||
f). Islam in South East Asia (perhaps 100 million Muslims), chiefly located in | |||
—Indonesia 107,000, of whom 87% are Muslim | |||
¶ | |||
—Malaysia and Singapore 10,212, of whom 44% are Muslim | |||
—Philippines 33,477, of whom 5% are Muslim. | |||
3.— Europe . | |||
A little less than 5 million Muslims in the Balkans, to whom must be added the Muslim workers in western Europe, so far as they have not been included in the figures for their respective countries of origin. | |||
To conclude this survey, the figure of 525 million Muslims might be suggested for the year 1966, a year during which the total world population has been estimated at 3,356 million inhabitants. The Muslims would represent about one-sixth of all human beings, or slightly less. | |||
(J. Jomier) | |||
Bibliography | |||
Since the list of books concerning this subject is too long to be given in full, the reader is referred to the bibliographies relating to the different countries dealt with above. A general survey of the expansion of Islam will be found in some historical atlases, such as the Historical Atlas ofthe Muslim Peoples, Djambatan-Amsterdam 1957. See also: L. Massignon, Annuaire du Monde Musulman, Paris 1955 | |||
U.N.E.S. C.O., Statistical Yearbook, 1967 (giving the figures for 1966). Some statistics are published by a number of countries: Religion in the Middle East, ii, London 1969 | |||
Bilan du Monde 1960, Encyclopédie du Monde Chrétien, ed. Casterman, ii, 1964 | |||
J. Ducruet and M. Martin, Statistiques Chrétiennes d’Egypte, in Travaux et Jours, Beirut no. 24 (July-Sept. 1967), 65-75. | |||
Cite this page | |||
Gardet, L. and J. Jomier, “Islām”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 28 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0387>--> | |||
<!-- {{DidYouKnow | <!-- {{DidYouKnow | ||
|Что такое ислам? | |Что такое ислам? | ||
Версия от 16:54, 21 сентября 2022
Что такое ислам?
Исла́м (араб. аль-ислям — предание [себя Богу], покорность) — одна из трёх мировых религий. Последователей ислама называют мусульманами (от араб. муслим — покорный [Богу]). Распространён главным образом в странах Ближнего и Среднего Востока, в Северной Африке и Юго-Восточной Азии. Число последователей более 1,8 млрд человек. В 28 государствах ислам является официальной или государственной религией. Характерной чертой ислама является его роль социального и культурного регулятора жизни мусульманского общества..
В Коране
Множественное число от слова «мусульманин» [муслимӯн] очень часто встречается в сурах Корана. Слово «ислам» [исля̄м] встречается В Коране только восемь раз. Это слово следует рассматривать в сочетании с довольно распространённым употреблением глагола асляма в двух значениях, которые сливаются одно в другое: «предание себя Богу» (внутреннее действие) и «исповедание ислама», то есть приверженность посланию пророка Мухаммада ﷺ.
В трёх аятах Корана подчёркивается внутреннее качество ислама: 
Кого Аллах желает наставить на прямой путь, тому Он раскрывает грудь для ислама, а кого Он желает ввести в заблуждение, тому Он сдавливает и сжимает грудь, словно тот забирается на небо
[6:125]; Кто же может быть несправедливее того, кто измышляет ложь об Аллахе, когда его призывают к исламу? [61:7]; Разве тот, чью грудь Аллах раскрыл для ислама, кто на свету от своего Господа, равен неверующему? [39:22].
В трёх аятах Корана подчёркивается связь между исламом и понятием дӣн. В данном контексте, безусловно, уместно переводить слово дӣн как «религия», не забывая при этом о долге перед Богом, который оно подразумевает: Сегодня Я ради вас усовершенствовал вашу религию, довел до конца Мою милость к вам и одобрил для вас в качестве религии ислам [5:3]; Воистину, религией у Аллаха является ислам [3:19]; От того, кто ищет иную религию помимо ислама, это никогда не будет принято, и в Последней жизни он окажется среди потерпевших урон [3:85].
Действие, которым оперирует ислам, предполагает «возвращение» к Богу [таўба], то есть обращение. В Коране говорится об «обращении в ислам» — чтобы осудить неверие (куфр) тех, кто тем не менее исповедовал веру [9:74]. Точно так же осуждается самодовольство бедуинов, которые хвастаются своим исламом, «как если бы это было одолжением с их стороны». Всевышний Аллах приказал сказать своему пророку: Не попрекайте меня вашим обращением в ислам. Это Аллах оказал вам милость тем, что привел вас к вере, если вы вообще говорите правду [44:17]. Чуть раньше в аяте 49:14 проводилось чёткое различие между исламом и иманом: Бедуины сказали: «Мы уверовали». Скажи: «Вы не уверовали. Посему говорите: «Мы покорились». Вера еще не вошла в ваши сердца.
Примечания
Литература
- Использованная литература
- L. Gardet, J. Jomier, Islām // Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. — Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1986. — Vol. III (H—Iram). (англ.)
- Дополнительная литература
- M. Arkoun, Islām // Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. — Leiden : E. J. Brill, 2002. — Vol. II (E—I). (англ.)
- Islām // Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān. — Sherwood Park: CIS, 2013—. — Vol. IV (I—O). (англ.)
- Г.В. Милославский, Ислам // Ислам: энциклопедический словарь. — М. : Наука, 1991. — С. 103—110. (рус.)
Информация о статье
- Автор: Нагметов, Р. Ш.; E-mail: feedback@quranacademy.org.
- Библиографическая ссылка: Ислам [Электронный ресурс] // QuranAcademy.org: Академия Корана. 2026 г.
- URL: http://ru.quranacademy.org/encyclopedia/article/islam
- Дата первой публикации:
Сотрудничество
Академия Корана приглашает к сотрудничеству авторов статей, редакторов, переводчиков, волонтёров и т. д. Об условиях сотрудничества и других интересующих Вас вопросах можете спросить в нашем Телеграм-аккаунте.
 Основной автор этой статьи — участник Maqivi. Если вы хотите обсудить содержание статьи, то перейдите на страницу обсуждения статьи или на страницу обсуждения участника.
Ссылки: 🔎 Просмотр (адм, арх, dev) / Википедия (цит.) / Iequran (л,с, а) / corpus / Brill: (1, 2, 3) / EQ / Islamica (ш, с) / TDVIA (ш) / ИЭС’91 / Али-заде Мета-теги: / Google (hqa) / Яндекс : * {{TDV||статья||yıl=|cilt=|sayfa=}} |