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:
uwila · 30/12/2005 20:16

Ah, yes, that is the interpretation of the law (i.e. the judicial system) not the laws themselves. I take your point, though I'm not sure I agree with it. I think there are other variables that may contribute to this statistic, and necessarily because judges and/or juries are racist.

Caligyulea · 30/12/2005 20:18

I don't think Islam (or Christianity, or any other patriarchal religion) is entirely blameless either.

In any holy book you care to mention, there will be passages which condone something an egalitarian liberal society would find reprehensible. Somewhere in the bible (don't ask me where) there are passages which condemn the practice of homosexual intercourse. Somewhere in the Koran there's a passage which allows men to marry four wives but doesn't make the same allowance for women.

That's not because God said so. That's because the society those books came out of, held those ideas. And Islam says you can't challenge that, because the Koran is the literal word of God. (And in fairness, many fundamentalist Christians insist that the Old Testament is the literal word of God as well, although they will dump the bits they don't like, like the dietary laws and say that has been superceded by Paul's direction on food, while keeping the bits they do like, like not masturbating and disapproving of homosexuality.)

Blandmum · 30/12/2005 20:41

It is probably in Leviticus.....most of those kind of things are

Uwila....part of the reason is probably that black peopole tend to be poorer and can't hire such good lawyers. Poorer people tend to suffer harsher punishments than rich ones regardless of colour.

It is the lack of change possible in Islam that worries me, if I am honest.

moondog · 30/12/2005 20:57

Would agree with your last sentence mb.
Religions need to evolve and be brave enough to discard aspects that are no longer relevant.
Trouble is,who decides what those are and when they go??
A fundamentalist (of any persuasion) would of course argue that what I suggest above is precisely what is wrong with us all today!!

I am no wishy washy liberal but must admit to feeling quite teary (or was it just the anaesthetic???) lying in my hospital bed after an operation last week,watching various civil partnerships take place.
How infinitely civilised that our country recognizes love and commitment in its myhriad forms.

Blandmum · 30/12/2005 21:04

uwila, I've had a quick google and a study out of Philadephia, which looked at murders, found that you are 3.9 times more likely to have the death penalty if you are black than if you are white.

uwila · 30/12/2005 21:13

I totally agree that religeon needs to be adaptable to our live (such as the language issue).

MB, yes I'v heard of similar studies and I accept that most people on death row are black. But, as you point out I'm inclined to believe it has to do with the fact that black people tend to populate the underpriviledged inner cities. So it could be down to the fact that they can't afford top lawyers or possibly the cultures in which they are raised are more accepting of crimes like murder than are the posh suburbs where more white children are raised.

Anniek · 30/12/2005 21:17

Don't you think though that all religions evolve as each generation mixes more with other religions / people etc.

My Grandmother never took any form of contraception (Irish Catholic) so had my mother at 47.... But my Mum waited for marriage to have sex and then after 4 kids was sterilised, and I've not waited for marriage and have always practiced contraception. Just one example but you get my meaning?

I think eventually whether you are a catholic, muslim, JW etc. eventually the majority of people will always pick and choose the parts of religion they want, but do agree this will mean people in less educated societies will unfortunately suffer more before they realise it is ok to say, I ain't doing that.

Blandmum · 30/12/2005 21:21

Agree with the inability to get a good lawyer thing, but this study was looking at comparing white people who had been found guilty of murder vs black people who had been found guilty. If you were black you were almost 4 times as likely to get the death penalty. So the propensity to commit murder didn't come into it.

stitch · 30/12/2005 21:22

when i was younger, and lived at home with mummy and daddy, i was immersed in islam. sort off. i lived in a muslim country, and my parents prayed five times a day. gods name was mentioned every so often. not an overtly religious household, just one were people practiced their faith whilst living in the world. many thought we were all ultra iiberals.
now the only time i discuss any sort of faith is when i am on mumsnet! bit shallow or what?

uwila · 30/12/2005 22:05

MB, did the study take into account what type of murder? Premeditated? First degree? Second degree? Number of people murdered? Past convictions?

I'm a bit of a skeptic when studies like this come out. I think they are often too simplistic and make broad sweeping statements. I also think they should sample more place than Philadelphia... although not that many states actually have a death penalty. Texas has one. Illinois does not (or at least didn't used to). And those are the only two states I've lived in for any length of time.

monkeytrousers · 30/12/2005 22:32

I agree Caligula, if anything is robust enough, it can be challenged - such is the scientific method - religions (and all religions) are all matters of faith in the end. (Sounds a bit obviousl that, doesn't it?)

peacedove · 31/12/2005 02:00

hi, I am glad to se that my absence has had a civilising effect here.

In the Indo-Pak backdrop, most Muslims are descendents of converts from Hinduism, and many of the caste/unntouchable customs and beliefs have been carried over. Islam came to wipe the unsavoury bits out, but the Muslims "adapted" to the local customs again, and hence many of the evils.

Maybe you do not know, but some years ago many thousands of Indian Hindu brides were burnt alive every year by their husbands and their in-laws because the dowry they brought in was less than that expected. And that happened in New Delhi too, in posh suburbs, among the educated ones.

The dowry system among Muslims of India is a relic of their Hindu past, and I feared the practice of bride-burning would also come to Muslims. It did start, and I know of one case, but it died out.

Just for the record, as to demonstrate how much of a misogynist I am, when I was I was in Pakistan, I personally helped an abused wife of a close family friend escape her husband, and his daughter similarly, at great risk to myself and my family. In all my efforts to help the victims of domestic violence, no one has been able to mention the religion giving him this right over his family.. It is always other things.

By wrongly blaming religion for the evils of culture, it becomes difficult to change society. You must identify the cause properly, or your presription won't work.

Before my presence here causes the peace to break down again, I will go away.

Bye.

OP posts:
tatt · 31/12/2005 08:02

no time to read all of this but I've had a quick scan.

I think peacedove is right to say that we are, most of us, ignorant about his religion and about the life of Mohammed. Certainly some of the posts on other threads have demonstrated that. However he doesn't actually help educate us because he doesn't want to post about the split between sunni and shia and the different ways in which Muslims interpret the Koran. He would prefer to pretend that doesn't happen. He does want to live under sharia law and he is sympathetic to terroists. None of that justifies being rude to him.

Levels of education in many muslim countries are low and muslims are often actively discouraged from thinking for themselves. Therefore many are unable to tell how their faith has been corrupted. I do fear for the future, anyone looking at sharia is bound to do so.

homemama · 31/12/2005 08:51

I've just lurked on this thread until now because I'm finding it very interesting but felt I had nothing to contribute. Still don't

However, just wanted to say to Uwila that only 12 U.S states don't have the death penalty.

homemama · 31/12/2005 08:55

Oh and I'm sure the evidence shows that almost all these states have rates of murder lower than the national average. ie It isn't a deterrent.

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 09:07

ueila, yes they did. The dehgree of the murfer and other contributing factors

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 09:09

of and it was a state wide thing, the reserchers were in Philidephia, it was done by a professor of law ans a statistician

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 09:12

peacedove, suti has been abolised in India since the days of the Raj, so your 'posh suburbs' thing is deeply missleading.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking you can teel us any old cobblers on MN and we are too stupid not to see through you.

It still happes, very , very rarly, just like honour killings in the muslim community do!

peacedove · 31/12/2005 09:31

Why do you hate me so, MB?

I agree that sutti was abolished during the Raaj, very true. One of the the good things to come out of the Raaj. True also that today it happens very rarely, but I wasn't talking about sutti, which took place after the death of a husband in Hindu society.

I am talking of wife-burning while the husband is still alive, and often with his collusion. Care to read this report (1996)

Geographical distribution of dowry deaths, 1994Source: National Crimes Bureau, Home Ministry

Andhra Pradesh - 396
Arunachal Pradesh - 0
Assam - 13
Bihar - 296
Goa - 0
Gujarat - 105
Haryana - 191
Himachal Pradesh - 4
Jammu & Kashmir - 1
Karnataka - 170
Kerala - 9
Madhya Pradesh - 354
Maharashtra - 519
Manipur - 0
Meghalaya - 0
Mizoram - 0
Nagaland - 2
Orissa - 169
Punjab - 117
Rajasthan - 298
Sikkim - 0
Tamilnadu - 83
Tripura - 6
Uttar Pradesh - 1977
West Bengal - 349
Andaman & Nicobar - 1
Chandigarh - 3
Dadra & Nagar Haveli - 0
Daman & Diu - 0
Delhi - 132
Lakshadweep - 0
Pondicherry - 4
Total - 5199

Are our sisters and daughters for sale?

OP posts:
Blandmum · 31/12/2005 09:48

I don't hate you, goodness I don't even know you. I get fed up with your faintly patronising air sometimes, but that is the limit.

Wife burning is not approved of, or allowed in Hinduism any more than honour killings are an approved part of Islam.

They are both a 'traditional' form of murder....not that being traditional makes it in any way right either.

Hindus would tell us that people who do that are not 'true' Hindus, and would be correct. You are just as quick to tell us tat terrorists cannot be Muslims because Islam forbids their acts, also correct.

I amazes me that while you are quick to point out that islam forbids bad practices you seem happy to infer the same is not true of Hinduism. you might as well have posted that Christianity approved of wife murders, becuae 'christians' kill their wives. So when a Muslim is bad it is the person not the religion, but when a hindu is bad, it is the religion. Is that what you are saying?

ruty · 31/12/2005 09:53

sorry PD, have to agree with MB on that point.

peacedove · 31/12/2005 09:55

OK, MB:

Did I say it was a Hindu religious law to burn wives?

Look at my posts again, and your reaction. I do think you are blinded by hate, of some sort.

Does it not bother you that there were [b]5199[/b] cases of burning brides in 1994 alone?

I maintain that culture is more at play than religion, and I illustrated it with a non-Muslim example.

I am done for today, but if you don't try to see this rationally, then what can I say?

OP posts:
ruty · 31/12/2005 10:00

sorry PD, i certainly do not hate you, I am glad you take the time to discuss with us. But I just did reread your post, and tho you didn't specifically say wife burning was religious law in Hinduism, you did seem to be implying that Muslim law has wiped out some of the more unsavoury parts of Hinduism in those that have come from Hinduism to Islam.

stitch · 31/12/2005 10:02

i agree with mb's last post. i think she is being the rational one here peacedove.

hinduism is a much maligned religion. mostly because of ignorance and non education of the mass of its followers.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:04

i think the same could be said of both Christianity and Islam stitch...