Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Th Ideal Society in Islam

427 replies

peacedove · 25/12/2005 07:30

This is in response to ruty, who wrote:

"Peacedove, I would be interested to know what kind of govt and society you view as the ideal. Do you believe in religious freedom, not just for muslims? Do you believe in a separation of State and religion? not a trick question, just asking."

The ideal society is what the prophet [saw] and the rightly-guided Caliphs demonstrated for us. I will detail it by examples later. I wonder if I will be allowed to do that. This is a "mumsy" site, you know

But peace, and tranquility, and a fair society are mumsy topics, too.

To answer your question, freedom of religion is for everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, the only exception being the practice of Black Magic.

Muslims have found the West liveable because many of the laws here and much of the attitudes of people to their neighbours click with us as being based on Islam, while in many parts of the societies we came from have lost those principles.

For example, equality before law is a principle laid out by the prophet [saw] himself. A woman of the influential tribe of bani Makhzoom was found guilty of stealing, and the closest person to the prophet, the young son Usama of the prophet's employee Zaid was sent to intercede on her behalf. The prophet loved Zaid as a son, and Usama as his own grandson. He had nominated young Usama for an important assignment when on deathbed, passing over many more seasoned Companions. Yet, despite that love, he laid the principle that even if the prophet's own daughter had been involved, she would also have received the same punishment. Throughout Muslim history, you will see many fine examples of that.

Equality before law is so enshrined in our psyche as an ideal that we once had realised in practice, that we resent our societies for having lost it, we resent our leaders for not implementing it, and we love the West for embracing this principle.

When we see the US or other Western countries compromising on this principle, we are baffled and feel betrayed, because we do know our societies have degenerated, but had come to see the West as an embodiment of that principle.

Take the case of the welfare state. The first welfare state in history was that of the second Caliph, who said that even if a dog dies on the banks of the river Euphrates due to hunger, I will be asked about it.

The principle for this had been laid down by the prophet [saw]. Loans in Islam are to be discharged, but the prophet said: if anyone of you dies leaving an estate, it is for his heirs (after paying the loans), but if he dies destitute (or his loans are greater than his assets), then the loans are for us (to pay). The state assumes the payment of such loans.

As opposed to dictatorships or the Divine right of Kings, the prophet said, something like: "everyone of you is a shepherd, and on the day of Judgmnent he will have to answer for his flock."

He similarly said, something like: "The ruler of people is actually their servant."

That is the principle which was actualy put in practice, and when we see or read of the lawmakers or the Prime Ministers doing what ordinary people do, using public transport, living in houses no better than the ordinary man, the husband helping the wife in household chores, this rings a bell with us because this is what our societies were like, before degeneration. I would have liked to post some of those stories, which will show what our ideal is, and how close the West is to our ideal, and where the West is far from that.

There are many examples, and many laws in the West ring a bell with us, because these are what Islamic societies had and should have, but because these societies, like the other third world countries, have developed a feudal/ tribalistic structure, having lost the Islamic values, they are far from Islam in many ways.

Islamic laws are based on common sense, and for the most part the West's laws and practice are mostly based upon this. For example the fundamental rule of the road was enunciated by the prophet [saw] - that you should not be an obstacle in someone's path. In fact we are asked to remove even pebbles from the path. Thus the laws on traffic make sense. If we try to understand this a little more deeply, it becomes a rule that we should be helpful to others, rather than being obstacles in the lives of others, provided what they are doing is legal and moral. An eminent principle, that helps society, and I have found in practice within Western societies, but the third world countries had lost it, mostly where feudalism prevailed.

Again for example, the fact that when someone says something in the West, there is trust that he has spoken the truth, this is Islamic, is one because Islam teaches Muslims to speak only the truth. The rule that an accused is innocent unless proven guilty, that is Islamic too.

And again the fact that contracts are to be recorded in writing, is an Islamic injunction.

We are taught to be civil and helpful. If we are not being so, it is because we have forgotten that particular command.

Muslims thinkers have thought long that the renaissance of Islam will take place in the West. This will happen due to internalisation of most Islamic values, which has already taken place here, NOT as a result of conquest by Islam. Islamic principles are already recognised and applied in the West, the only obstacle in the way of accepting Islam is ignorance.

Islam teaches tolerance. It tells us that all mankind is from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve. It tells us life is so valuable that the taking of one innocent life is like murdering the whole of humanity. It tells us that wastage and over-consumption are sins, which will have to be answered for.

Islam teaches respect for other species, and for the environment.

Of course, there are some areas where the West is away from Islamic principles. Europe in having lost or relegating religion has gone in a direction away from God, and that may now be a hurdle in the embracing of Islam by Europe.

Why we don't see much of this in practice in Muslim countries, is something that has occupied Muslim thinkers for a long time, and there have been many movements for rectification. Not all of them have been comprehensive, not all of them have blamed the West. Unfortunately again, instead of trying to understand these movements, the politicians and leaders with agendas, people with vested interests, from within and without, have sabotaged that process.

Why I say based on Islam? because Europe learnt from Islam and Muslims. Muslim societies fell into corruption and disarray, but Islam does not.

The Tatars are a classic example. They destroyed Muslim lands, and dispersed Muslim peoples, conquering their lands, committing atrocities even worse than the Nazis, but they eventually reverted to Islam, NOT as a result of conquest, but because the principles of Islam appealed to them.

There is one major difference from today's West, and that is to us all these good laws come from Allah and His prophet, so we want to establish these in the name of Allah.

OP posts:
uwila · 29/12/2005 16:58

What a long long thread. But hey what is work for if not to catch up on mumsnet. Peacedove does seem to answer selectively. While he does come aross as very logical and peaceful, he does leave a lot out.

And, why the name peacedove? Isn't that a christian symbol? Or perhaps it is a muslim one as well.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 16:59

Not in those exact words but that was the gist of what he said. He also made the point that he didn't want multiple wives, but had not probelm with it as an idea and lomg as all the women were treated equally.

uwila · 29/12/2005 17:01

Right, so what does he think about a society where women have mutilpe husbands and the husbands cover up and stay inside all day?

Caligyulea · 29/12/2005 17:02

Does that mean some women have the right to have multiple partners because their sex drive is so strong?

Or should they just repress their sex drive or be stoned if they don't?

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:03

To be fair on him, he did say that the women would have to agree to it. I think he tends to forget that although Islam gives women that right, local societies may well not. He leaves that bit out. And tbh how many women would really like to share their dh? Not many I'd bet!

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:04

These are the things that he doesn't want to discuss. For quite understandable reasons, I think!

uwila · 29/12/2005 17:11

I think this is my favourite (though it was hard to choose:

"Islamic principles are already recognised and applied in the West, the only obstacle in the way of accepting Islam is ignorance. "

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:15

This is the quote I was thinking of

This is a word for word quote, I have cut and pasted it

'As fuzzywuzzy said, temporary marriage is not allowed in Islam. The shia practice it, but there are misguided in some other ways, too.

polygamy MD! would you rather have your husband cheat on you with having mistresses, or would you rather know he is within the bounds of God's law, and has another wife. Oh the cases I have known of cheats. Here is a word of wisdom for you ladies about your husbands. Around the forties, when most men move to a managerial position and relative prosperity, they look at there wives and find her a little more matronly for their taste. hence they have a fling. Or they come under the intellectual dominance of a younger woman who has fresh academic learning, and they want a change.

Multiple wives aren't that common in Muslim societies. Having one wife is expensive and troublesome enough, I think. Now don't flay me for it. It wass said to lighten the "clerical" talk. '

uwila · 29/12/2005 17:19

Does anyone else wonder if he came here just to piss us off?

I have little time for suchignorance.... and he called us ignorant!!!

I'm giving him what he wants, aren't I?

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:22

Breathtaking isn't it, 'Women, Men will Fuck around, so isn't it better for them to have a second wife and be honest about it'. So, rather than god directing men to bloody well behave themselves, women have to accept a second class role. Because PD wouldn't let a midlle aged women have two husbands, whould be....for her it would be a stoning!

uwila · 29/12/2005 17:28

Second, MB? Surely, you are not limiting him to 2?

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 17:36

You have to remember that in order for a man to have more than one wife he has to treat them all equally, which is pretty difficult if not impossible.
Multiple marriages is more a cultural phenomenon, it is widely accepted in the middle East, and before the advent of Islam men tended to have lots of wives, Islam put a cap on the number of wives a man could legally have.

If a woman does not feel she would be able to cope with her husband taking another wife, she can have it written in her marriage contract. It's not in mine, but I can tell you dp's family would hang him by the short and curlies, if he did take another wife...I know only one man who has two wives, and everyone kinda whispers and gasps about it.....
Personally if I was proposed to by a man who already had a wife I would first speak to his first wife, and gain her permission before even considering it.

Either way, no man could treat any subsequent wife euqally in a western country where Polygamy is not allowed. I would go so far as to say any man with more than one wife living in the UK (for example), is being unfair to his subsequent wife, as she is not legally recognised as a spouse, and her legal rights are not the same as those of his first wife.

Surprisingly it doesn't annoy me that men are allowed up to four wives, I don't want four husbands...the mind absolutely boggles at the prospect really.
I did once ask dp whether he'd consider marrying another woman...he stared at me for ages and told me he wasn't mad enough.....

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:40

I know that is well regulated society, where the men abide by the rules, it is rare, but yuo know, as do I that this is not always the case, and multiple marriages make the position of women in some societies even less equal.

My point is tha PD says, 'Men are going to be unfaithfulm, so multiple marriage is better'

His view seems to be that since men want to be unfaithful, women should have to put up with it

To which I say, Cobblers!

uwila · 29/12/2005 17:47

Nice boys don't become bigomists.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 17:52

fuzzywuzzy, what to the co-wives think about the dh and each other? Are the really happy with the situation?

I just can't imagine anyone being prepared to share their dh. If they could have him on their own wouldn't any woman prefer that?

And if a man can have multipe partners doesn't it skew the balence of power and respect in a marriage. As you say your dh's family would swing him by the short and curlies

I do realise that it is more of a cultural thing than a religious one, but religion putting more power in the hands of one gender always makes me worry IYSWIM

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:04

Mb, a friend of mine (a revert), has married a man who's father has two wives, they live together, one big huge family. The house is split into two portions and the wives get on well as far as I can make out......

Dunno I can think of many instances where it would be useful to have an ally in my relationship with dp, perhaps that one of the reasons he wouldn't do it, he knows we'd gang up on him...... BUT I can't tell you how I would be in hypothetical situation as I've enver been in a this position and nobody close to me has either...
Persoanlly I see the right to four wives more of a major responsibility than a frivollity, the punishment for a man who mistreats his wives and treats them unequally are very psecific in the Quran.
I would say it was more telling the man to think long and hard, and then to marry one woman, and keep his gaze lowered. A man who finds he is being tempted is told to fast and think much of his Lord...I am being serious

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:08

But that isn't what pd is saying tho, is it?

I have read the Book seller of Kabul (And I know that Afghanistan isn't representative, but even so) and the women in that were so humiliated when their husbands took another wife. As PD said the older man fancied a younger wife. Yuck! They knew their rights and not their responsibilities, ut isn't that commmon in all societies, western, eastern and all?

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:10

Don't you think that in this case the law is being misinterpreted (or used freely) by men who have the power to do so? This is what worries me when there is inequality in the law, the rich and powerful get to abuse it.

ruty · 29/12/2005 18:14

i can see the traditional reasons for having more than one wife - it was traditionally the case that you would take your brother's wife and kids if he died or another relative's, so as to look after them, so as fuzzywuzzy said it was more of a responsibility than a luxury. But this idea of PD's that all men are naturally inbuilt to cheat when their wives get 'matronly' - Oh dear. Some men might, obviously not all. bit of a generalisation methinks...

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:16

All part of his less charming persona!

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:18

"they look at there wives and find her a little more matronly for their taste. hence they have a fling"

f*cking nonce!

Islam is IGNORANT

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:19

To be fair, I don't think that Islam is........

Now some people is a different matter......

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:20

there's that other thread today about feminism

d'yer reckon there's room for that in Islam?

ruty · 29/12/2005 18:20

thats not fair mistleToo - i don't think Islam is ignorant. No wonder PD feels accused.

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 18:20

Well here I go being controversial again...as much as you might not like what PD said, I'm afraid the scenareo he paints is very common, BUT where I feel he's wrong is that such a right (to be unfaithful, as it is in our culture) shouldn't be backed up by the law. It is more a cultural than religious phenomena though - and studies show that humans haven't evolved to be polygynous but to have one or two monogamous relationships (on average) over the course of a lifetime (unlike some other apes ). Polygyny can only work for very rich man anyway - so it's more a status thing - or it can be useful in societies where the sex ratio is unequal or the male population has been decimated by disease or war. Humans adapt..

Swipe left for the next trending thread