Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
moondog · 29/12/2005 18:46

Hmm,but fuzzy the way that Cal describes it suggests cunning and trickery to have a say in what goes on. One may argue that women have always done that with men,but it sits poorly with me and how I want things to be with my dh.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:49

Md what part of it??? I dunno as I've never been in the situation and am unlikely to be. Also if the (un)likelihood of it arose I ewould quite honestly first speak to the man's first wife....

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:49

Oh it is JT!

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:50

The idea of 'ganging up' to 'get their way' fw.

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 18:53

even if it's 'written' it's telling you to do something and you don't question it?

is there a heirarchy of wives then? is No 1 top dog so to speak? If yes, who'd be No 5?

Caligyulea · 29/12/2005 18:55

Yes, not very equal and respectful, the way he described it. The women in a sense had the status of children.

Mind you, not much worse than women who lie to their husbands about how much they've spent on their shoes - that always strikes me as very infantilising.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 18:55

I've never come across women not being allowed to have a say in what should happen. Dp's never ever questioned my decisions and both of us make big decision jointly.

It was the Prophet (pbuh)'s way to consult with his wife before making a big decision, he did it when he was forced to sign a treaty which he knew his followers would be unahppy with, he asked his wife how to go about telling his followers of the treaty, and then he took her advice.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 18:55

Wouldn't the worry be tho, if you were number one wife that if you dh came to you and said 'I want to marry again' and you said 'No' he might just divorce you anyway. Granded pleanty of women get dumped for wife number two in all cultures, but is the fisrt wifes 'blessing' of the second marriage every really a free and fair one? Could it be? Particularly if the man held all the cards re money etc

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:56

Well to be fair JT,what are the Ten Commandments if not orders???

I really don't have a problem with a great deal of Islam.Most of it is splendid good sense and kindness.

moondog · 29/12/2005 18:58

And agree with your shoe analogy Cal. I am always surprised at the way women manipulate and dupe men in this fashion.
In this sense we are no better (well maybe a leeetle??) than PD and his weird ideas about 'matronly' ladies and mens' sex drive.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 19:01

Mb divorce is frowned upon, it's supposed to be something of a last resort. But it's permissable, if a man swaps one wife for another I wouldn't particularly marry him, would you??? Because who knows several years down the line when another pretty young woman comes along.... I'd tell him to get stuffed personally.

Four wives is the maximum number allowed (yes yes I said allowed). No wife is allowed to lord it over the other, all wives are equal..... wonder how it would work out financially, my co-wife would requre a three bed-semi of the same value with all the trimmings.....

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 19:04

No, I agree, and the same would be true for me re western style divorce as well. But multiple marriages just adds to the inequality.

How could a woman ever want to share her husband with another woman? And why should she have to? And why is it OK for a man, but not a woman?

I know that Islam gave greater right to women at the time of the Prophet, but women's right have moven on a bit since that

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 19:07

Mb any woman who feels she wouldn't be able to cope can have it written into her marriage contract. And some do.

I have often wondered how a woman would cope with it as to us (yes me too) it is an alien concept, but for a lot of women who are in plural marriages it is normal...

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 19:08

yes that's fair moondog - the 10 commandments though are reasonable tenets by which we should all live (well most of them - the first few, if you are religious! )

stitch · 29/12/2005 19:52

mistletoo, what you said earlier was uncalled for. just because your world view doesnt agree with islam's doesnt mean you have the right to go round calling it names.

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 19:53

which bit?

stitch · 29/12/2005 19:58

re the polygamy thing. in islam marriage is not given the same sort of status as it is in christianity. there is nothing 'holy' about it. it is a legal contract to safegueard the rights and responisbilities of the man, woman and any subsequent offspring. nothing more, nothing less. a man is allowed to form such contracts with up to four women, but only as long as he can be fair and equal to them all, (an impossibility imo) why women havent been given such a right, i dont know. we can argue the reasons for or against it. but the fact remains that in the quran, thisis so. i can only assume that god has some reason for this. just coz i dont understand it.......

stitch · 29/12/2005 19:59

jt, her post of 6.18

stitch · 29/12/2005 20:03

i grew up in saudiarabia where more than one wife is not a rare phenomena. once when discussing the plight of women working as maids in some hosuehoulds being badly treated, i asked mom why the wives didnt make there husbands stop having sex with the maids? (i was naive!) mom said that apparently the women preferred the men to have sex witht the maid rather than get married again, as the second wife would have the same rights as her, whilst the maid had none. iyswim
appalling, shocking. i know. but this is a traditional thing rather than a religious thing.

sis · 29/12/2005 20:03

Stitch, MistleToo was JoolsToo's Christmas name.

stitch · 29/12/2005 20:05

oh!
well, jt, that post was nasty. i didnt expect such from you.

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 20:07

Stitch - It might have someting to do with the practicality of a woman not being able to work and so provide for her extended families. Childcare doesn't exsit in many countries ( I I doubt would have exitest on an industrial scale anywhere when these laws or tenets or whatever they are were laid out. Without a welfare state we wouldn't have as many choices as men - that's just a fact.

monkeytrousers · 29/12/2005 20:08

that was in response you your post at 7:58 BTW

stitch · 29/12/2005 20:14

actually mt, i disagree with you about the childcare. in the uk it is absolutely apalling imo. in fact i think that more traditional societies have far far better childcare setups.

i dont know why god chose to allow men to be polygamous, but not women. and i dont think i am that bothered about the reasons for it. there is a great deal in islam that is good..just as there is in all the worlds religions. its very easy to get caught up in the little details of things. what i have noticed, in my limited experience, is that people who truly believe in their god, whatever religion, tend to be those who are most at peace with themselves and their life, and are content.whether they be christian, muslim, hindu, budhist, or any thing else.

EatDrinkAndBeAMerryPip · 29/12/2005 20:42

Stitch, to be fair, the subjects being discussed on this thread are not little details.