Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:22

Mb you've hit it on the nail, they know their rights but not their responsibilities.....I fidn it shocking that a beautfiul young woman would want to marry an old coger to be honest. The women I am speaking of are similar in age.
The ones we knew (and everyone whispered about), were similar in age, but one was Polish and the other Indian, the husband bought a flat for both women one upstairs and one downstairs. I don't think the women liked eitherm uch but they were civil to one another, the man has since divorced his second wife but the 'marriage' lasted a decade and then some.

As I said, I would first seek the permission of my sister in Islam before considering a proposal from a married man, I could not in any way trample over the heart of any woman.....

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:23

coming out with stuff like that so he should!

there are few pot-bellied, nose-picking, bum scratching 40 year-old gits out there too - so come on girls let's bring out the new model eh? one for each day of the week should do it!

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:25

And if you enshrine that unfairness in religious law, you tip the balence further against the woman. Just because something happens, like murder or rape or theft (extreme examples I grant you) it doesn't mean that you legalise them!

His attitue is that men will do it, but women can't because a man might have to raise another mans child.

Double standards, anyone??

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:26

who in their right mind would have their partners wife No 2 living upstairs? I mean come on - you'd have to be indoctrinated to allow that to happen, or have little self worth.

double standards mb? bloody hell YES!!!!

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 18:30

But that isn't his opinion, it's everyones opinion! It's the universal opinion. I'm not saying accept it, obvioulsy culture and environment can change certain attitudes but it will never make women into men or have interchangable sexualities. If you need proof that women are just as prejudiced do a search on some threads on here about getting pregnant by someone other than your partner and not telling them. They're very revealing I'll tell you!

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:31

well, it bloody isn't my opinion and for that matter neither is it my dhs!

ruty · 29/12/2005 18:32

what i find difficult is why is it that heterosexual men at a certain age should not have to supress their desires towards a younger woman, but a woman should always suppress her desires to anyone but her one husband, and a gay person should supress his/her desires full stop. This many be a cultural thing, not part of Islam, but it does seem very geared to suit heterosexual men. [Christianity has done similar things of course.]

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:32

where, in the world do women have several husbands but the men aren't allowed several wives?

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:33

ruty, well said

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 18:34

Nepal, but it's more to do with property as the woman will marry the brothers of the same family.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:36

and it is quite rare , even in nepal. Dhs uncle lived there for years and seldom came across it....and he was out and about most parts of the country. it is only in one or two specific areas

MistleToo · 29/12/2005 18:37

Nepal - sounds great

"Women in Nepal are generally less educated than men. Women in rural areas lack the financial means, adequate food, housing, health care, educational facilities, social status. Mostly they are exploited and excluded ones. Husbands in Nepal have a greater say in decision-making than wives. Usually the husband alone has a final say in their health care."

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:38

Thank you MB for the post of 5:15 pm in which you lifted something that PD said to me on another thread a while back.
This is precisely why I hound him the way I do.

Oh and re what someone said about Peachskin being 'hounded off' this forum,what a load of shite!!
If she really is the Top Human Rights Lawyer she purports to be,do you really think that the opinion of a handful (because lets face it,there aren't many people who have hung around for the duration of these interminable arguments about Islam are there?????) of people on a forum would send her off,tail between her legs????

Where are ya PS???
Come and fight some more I say.
I'm ready and waiting.....

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:39

Used to be more common in Tibet, but i is illegal there now

Caligyulea · 29/12/2005 18:39

I did know someone years ago whose father had four wives (he was the son of the second) and they would all gang up on the husband to get their own way.

He was from a very traditional African muslim family.

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:39

And just to reiterate-go to the post of 5:15 pm today to see what Peacedove thinks about polygamy.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:40

Mistletoo, they did it, I have no idea why, and I couldn't then neither can I now stand that particular man. Also I believe he was not treating his second wife equally, as they lived in England and his second wife was not recognised as such by law.....

Men and women are told to lower their gaze, they are told to fast not go marrying left right and centre, and they are told that if they marry they must treat all wives equally. I can't speak for the men who don't do this.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:40

oh aye, I'd forgotten her. She didn't like the Land of our Fathers much, did she?

Wasn't she 'teaching us a lesson'? Yawn!

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 18:40

in our house it was me and the kids ganging up on dh to get our own way

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:42

jools, lol, we tend to have a bit of that in our house too.

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 18:42

fuzzywuzzy - 'they are told?

does anyone think for themselves?

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:42

And I seem to remember quite a few people (no names mentioned natch!) giving me a bollocking for being 'mean' to PD and PS.

Not that I gave a toss....

Nice to see you and your er.....refreshingly robust take on life here on this thread JT!

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:44

JT how about it is written that men and women should lower their gaze, they should fast, they should love their spouse...hows that??

Dunno why I am still unable to get cross about the polygamy thing, perhaps because it is a world away from the reality that is my life, and I imagine the situation to be more the way Caligyulea describes it....

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 18:45

In our culture it's a luxury (if that's the right word) that we marry from a romantic tradition - in most place around the world pragmacy comes first.

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 18:45

I'll take that as a compliment md

Swipe left for the next trending thread