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:
moondog · 29/12/2005 20:57

Stitch,the reason that childcare is so 'good' in other societies,is that there are hordes of women who do nothing more than sit at home and look after children-the idea of having a life outside the home is a fantasy (I'm thinking of Eastern Turkey especially where I live).
As for the dosmissal of these discussions as mere details,well frankly you are doing exactly what PD does.

They are not mere details. Any woman (or man for that matter) brought up in a democratic society,will have real problems accepting this stuff and for this reason it needs to be teased out.

I have yet to receive an accaptable interpretation or rationale to this stuff and I have this discussion with many many Muslims.

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 21:06

And it seems to be one of the reasons why some Muslims have been asking for Itjihad or discussion and reformation. Is what was a good idea in medaeval time, when many women were widowed in religious wars, still a good idea in the 21st centuary when women have rights to equal education and employment? Is is right for things to stand still?

Unfortunaly some of the people asking for these discussions have been threatened and been called blasphemers. Always a worry when you can't ask questions....

sansouci · 29/12/2005 21:12

but the religious wars continue...

Blandmum · 29/12/2005 21:14

But not, I think on quite the same scale as in the early days of Islam, and we now have ways of supporting ourselves other than becomeing a second wife!

sansouci · 29/12/2005 21:16

True enough.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 21:43

During the Prophet's (pbuh) time the women were educated, they were able to work, I know one of the Prophet's wives used to weave baskets (OK not high-powered stuff for our time but..), The Prophet (PBUH)'s first wife was a big business woman who owned her own business, in fact her husband used to 'work' for her, she liked his honesty and proposed to him.

I tend to agree with Stitch, the point that each wife should be treated equally is also in my opinion almost impossible.
Also in a lot of countries in these modern times the men have been lost to wars, and the male female ratio is very imbalanced, in these cases, I can see the logic to plural marriages, why should some women be unmarried if they wish to be married.

fuzzywuzzy · 29/12/2005 21:49

no woman is firced into a plural marriage though. If a woman wants to be the only wife she may stipulate tihsi n her marriage ocntract, subsequent wives make the decision to enter into a plural marriage.

I know a woman, American lady, she's a revert, owns her own business is very successful. Has two grown up sons. And is divorced, she is about to enter into a plural marriage, with a man who first discussed it with his first wife and gained her blessing before propsing to the American lady.
The lady has said herself that her co-wife (to be), is very beautiful and much younger than her, the lady herself is of an age where she will probably not be able to have children.
Nobody has forced these two women, and by all accounts the husband is a decent loving husband who is devoted to his wife and children.

Just because the concept is alien in our society I can't condemn it, it does work.

moondog · 29/12/2005 21:56

Where do they live fw?

(I think I am going to start talking about Christian reverts from now on too.)

moondog · 29/12/2005 21:57

Can't believe that you assert that no woman is forced into a plural marriage!!

?????

stitch · 29/12/2005 22:06

hmmm, lots to say, but i dont know if i will be able to say anything at all eloquently.

how is a second marriage any different from a man going off and having an affair? leaving the woman with kids and money problems? and a broken heart? and then leaving the next woman in a similar state? im not condoning this action, but if a man at least marries the women, then their rights are assured in law. [or is it insured?]
siilarly children born into a marriage are entitle to inheritance, whilst kids born to cohabiting couples have to have this legalised, [although im not 100% sure on this]

also, i actually do think that all this is little details, unless i was actually thinking of converting to a religion. plural marriage is so far removed from my own reality.....if dh, or anyone of my rl friends dh tried this, they would be boiled alive by friends, family, and the law etc. similarly homosexuality. i know lots of people who have had varying degrees of homosexual experiences, but none who insist that they are born this way.
and as for women d oing nothing all day but staying at home and looking after babies, well, whats wrong with that? why do women have to go out to work?but thats several threads on its own.
i hope i havent rambled too much and you can see some meanimg in my 6typing

stitch · 29/12/2005 22:08

oooo, md, i just remembered, i do know a woman in a plural marriage.
she even ran away from home to get married to this guy! but no one thinks much of him at all. he's a bit of an alky apparently. and the two wives help and support each other and their children.

moondog · 29/12/2005 22:12

Stitch,everything that you say is interesting,precisely because you are a Muslim woman.

Re polygamy,like PD you seem to accept that men need to have an outlet for sexual urges in away that women can't.
This seem wrong to me,and i would imagine a vast proportion of women in the 'Western' world,brought up as we are to aspire to equality between the sexes.

It suggests that we accept that men are animals with uncontrollable urges,thus anything that parlty contains this is ok.
How about getting him to keep his trouserszipped up??

Nothing wrong with staying at home and looking after babies (I'm doing it myself) but it has to be achoice,not all there is to look forward to in life.

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 22:26

do any of these men with multiple wives have affairs? (i'm guessing 'yes'!)

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 22:32

and can you be a muslim and a feminist?

stitch · 29/12/2005 22:58

md, i think the entire argument about men having sexual urges is crap. in fact its insulting to men. so whenever anyone puts that argument forward, i just have to laugh. i know lots about female sexual urges, and we dont necessarily go round shagging everything that moves!
yes jt, you can be a muslim woman and a feminist. just like you dont have to burn your bra to be a feminist. my mom is a feminist. as was my grandmother.
md, i dont condone plural marriages. its just that i accept that they exist. a power greater than me has decided that its ok for them to exist.
what i feel far more strongly about is women who dont want to marry their dp's. as a wife i have lots of legal rights, id ont understand women who feel they dont need them

etc etc etc.

stitch · 29/12/2005 22:59

but moondog, everything i say is interesting coz i am the little blue alien!

JoolsToo · 29/12/2005 23:19

but stitch - do you not question your greater power? Do plural marriages feel right to you? Do you not think - well maybe eons ago but not today? Is that too simplistic?

moondog · 30/12/2005 00:08

Yes,you're right stitch.it is insulting to men to assume that they have to get it out and dip it in and out.
I would agree with you on the marriage thing too. A woman with children is vulnerable and marriage protects her in away that a mere partnership doesn't.
As an aside,can hetero couples register as civil partners??

(How sad am I fretting about this stuff as I am cleaning my oven??!)

gomez · 30/12/2005 00:30

moondog - civil patnerships are only avaiable to same sex couples to answer your questions.

moondog · 30/12/2005 01:26

Thanks Gomez.
(Oven half finished!)

Blandmum · 30/12/2005 08:37

Missed the rest of this because I was dull and boring and tired and went to bed. Now I'm half wishing I had stayed up and cleanen my oven.

Stitch, you are a very interesting little blue Alien!

Find it hard to accept your assertion that women are not pressured into plural marriage. I know that I may well be very rare here, but in other parts of the world where women have traditional far less power and formal education , they may well not know their rights under islamic law!

That is one of the things that worries me in this being enshrined in law. The law may have been given by god, but it is being administered by men. Men can be falliable, and may not be fair in its use! Especially if thet also have more power than the women to start off with IYSWIM.

As I said I read the Bookseller of Kabul, where an older wife had to put up with a teenager second wife. She was devistated. He husband said it was because the second woman was poor (funnt she was alo young and pretty as well eh? ) His fammily was shocjed at the disrespect he had showed his first wife, but he just went ahead anyway.

Why was this worse thna having an affair? She had to live with the woman. She also would have found it almost impossible to divorse him, since tecnicaly he had done not wrong.

Granted this is set in Afghanistan, and I realise this is not typical of all muslim states, but it was happeneing to her.

Regarding the historical fact that the Prophets wife was educated, yes I realise she was, but that was not the notm at the time, was it?

Stitch and Fuzzy, can I just say how nice it is to discuss this with you! You are giving very interesting points. A much better standard of discussion than from some other (ahem) quaters.

ruty · 30/12/2005 10:30

it is very interesting to hear stitch and fuzzy wuzzy's points i agree. I would like to ask more, but have to work. will come back tho if you are all still around...

fuzzywuzzy · 30/12/2005 10:31

OK went off to bed too sorry so missed the rest of the discussion.

Islamically one cannot be pressurised into marriage it is a sin to force anyone to marry someone.
A girl was married without her consent during the time of the Prophet(pbuh), she complained of this to the Prophet(pbuh) to which he told her she could have her marriage unnulled immediately. It turned out she was happy with her marriage however she wanted to make a point, that her permission was not sought first. When we marry, a member of the family actively seeks out the permission of the girl. This is how the marriage contract is performed; it goes something like 'So Fuzzywuzzy do you want to marry Mr Fuzzywuzzy' One is sat there in all her wedding finery, and she is able till the last to change her mind and say no.
I do agree with whoever who said that men are abusing their status, I am all for more female scholars, women should rightly have a say in the law, as too much power held by a few men does end up being intoxicating, which leads them to abuse their status.
Historically women had a say in laws, Once during the Caliphate, one of the rightly guided Caliphs tried to put a cap on the amount a woman could ask as her bride gift. To which an old woman stood up and quoted a passage from the Quran which basically said, women could ask for as much or as little as they wished. The Caliph immediately bowed to the older ladies knowledge saying 'Even an old lady knows more Than Omar'...Now however many countries have put caps on the amount of Mahr a woman can ask for I think there have been laws stating such in Syria at least, not sure of Saudi Arabia.

Md The American revert lady I was speaking of lives in America (funnily enough), she will go to the homeland of her husband to marry so she is legally recognised as a wife. I've known her a while and I do vividly recall a time when she had stated 'I do not share'.
quite a U turn considering she was the one who approached her fiance first and not the other way round.

Caligyulea · 30/12/2005 11:10

In the real world though, I'm pretty sure a girl who disgraced her family by saying at the last minute that she didn't want to marry the man chosen for her, would be lucky to walk again after the beating she would get.

Theory is great, but practice is what counts.

fuzzywuzzy · 30/12/2005 11:14

Caligulyea A girl is asked way before she's sitting there during the marriage ceremony. She's asked when she meets the guy, and then there's usally a time period during which she can change her mind.