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:
Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:05

don't be asinine, of course I worry that women are being burned. I also worry at the over 1000 women jkilled in Pakestan in, 'honour killings', estimate only since it is a highly secrative act.

Why bother to raise the wife burning issue if it wasn't anti Hindu. You thesis was 'the bad things that Islam has, is because Hinduism had them first' yousaid as mach when you said,

'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. '

Please, peaople can be evil and wicked, regardless of their religion. If I'd posted the stats about honour killeings unqualified you would be shouting from the rooftops that I was as Islamophone (again).

PD, rthis is a discussion group, we expect to discuss things. Not say 'oh wow, that is just so great PD, I've been wrong all along'. If you can't cope with discussion, why post? And I can tell you that you have had a much easier ride than you would have if you had posted your thoughts and said you were an evangelical Christian.

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:06

Sorry, islamphobe!

Mine you I've been posting about islam that much...

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:09

Ruty, agree with you as well. People can be evil regadless of their religion, or lack of it. Religion can be misused just like anything else.

Stitch, thank you for your kind comment! Next time ds wants to watch your film, I'll let him (he does a great impersonation BTW.....drives me loopy1)

stitch · 31/12/2005 10:15

i dont know a great deal about hinduism, but it basically is much the same as the ten commandments. the numerous gods are simply representations of the supreme being. the castes and subcastes are a social order thing. similar to the social hierarchy in most other organised societies.
however hinduism is a very old religion. much older than islam/christianity/judaism. it has had a long long time to be corrupted. especially since its books are written in sanskrit, a language which for some reason became forbidden for any but the priests to learn, so the masses couldnt access it. so the priests were free to interpret it the way they saw fit. (christianity avoids this problem by continually tranlating the bibel. islam by insisting everyone learn arabic.)
a lot of the evils in hinduism were probly started by priests thinking to preserve the status quo. so for example, sutti probly started because a wife will inherit from her husband, but if she is young and pretty, her second husband will inherit from her, messing up the estates of the rich. if she dies with her husband, the estate doesnt get divided. iyswim.
the raj managed to ban sutti because they had the military might to be able to enforce this. it doesnt mean that before them people didnt think it was wrong.
must go get my kids some food now. will return later.

stitch · 31/12/2005 10:17

mb

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:20

And now we come to the central pobelm when religions remain unchanged and unquestioned, and that goes for all of them IMHO.

R the everyone muxt learn Arabic, not all Muslims do though, do they? So the possibility that the Koran can be misinterpreted is a very real one. There is a call for UK based Imams who can preach in English, since many muslims cannot speak their language of country of familial origin. And it is mams 'imported' from North Africa who have been linked to the most offensive 'anti Semitic' pronouncements.

peacedove · 31/12/2005 10:29

ruty people here have been agreeing that Islam is to blame. That Islam needs a reformation, and have been refusing to accept that cultural practices and attitudes are at fault.

The word unsavoury was used for Islam, no one protested. Why protest now?

The Raaj wiped out Sattee, which was an abhorent practice. Similarly, people became Muslim for various reasons. One being the non-existence of a caste sysytem. My forefathers converted from Hinduism.

The point was wife-burning.

Can we agree that honour killings and wife-burning are abhorrent, and can we agree that most issues are related to culture, and not to religion?

My Hindu friends at school through University through work have agreed with me. Over in India I still have Hindu relatives descended from my forefathers.

OP posts:
ruty · 31/12/2005 10:33

yes agree with most of what you say stitch. Though i am not completely sure that every Muslim understands Arabic so well as to understand everything in the Qu'ran, do they? I know in Christianity there is a kind of 'chinese whispers' effect in the translations and retranslations of the Bible over time. I have read some retranslations of parts of the New Testament direct from the original Aramaic, and the effect on meaning is powerful and uplifting.
[sounding a bit too fluffy here aren't i?]

I always wondered if Religions mellowed and evolved over time, rather than got more corrupted over time, I guess there are always exceptions to the rule, but not as whole religions on masse, rather as individuals who look at their faiths not blindly but with a humane and inquisitive conscience [yeah i know i'm repeating myself now.] Anyway, my poor ds needs my attention. Better go.

stitch · 31/12/2005 10:34

mb, i was taught that when discussing religion, it is essential to quote the source of all your arguments. so it is never enough to say, 'the quran says so'/ chapter and verse must always be quoted. similarly with the hadeeth, (sayings of the prophet) always quote the source.
there is a saying in the subcontinet. said to be a saying of the prophet. something like go as far as you have to in order to gain knowledge and understanding, even if it is all the way to china. (meaning far away) pretty good advice actually. but its not a saying of the prophet, and shouldnt be quoted as such. but it is.
maybe coz of the scientifice background of my family members, maybe not. but chapter and verse is always considered vital.
something else i was taught. that is that no man or woman has a right to ban what allah has allowed.

fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 10:34

MB A lot of Imams do speak English I thin kyou are thinking of the Friday Prayers where there is a sermon, every single Mosque I have attended frist has the sermon in the mother tongue then in english.
We do have homegrown Brit Imams, their is a recognition that the reverts (read white/black exclusively english speaking), need ot be catered to, similarly I think I may possibly be in the minority amongst my friends i nthat I speak my mother tongue, many of my friends only understand English.
However as part of our Islamic education we did receive language classes in both Arabic and Urdu.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:36

PD, I accept what you say that the practices we have been talking about are not Islamic in their origin. Still a bit iffy about the punishments prescribed in Sharia Law though, but don't know enough about it.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:36

PD, I accept what you say that the practices we have been talking about are not Islamic in their origin. Still a bit iffy about the punishments prescribed in Sharia Law though, but don't know enough about it.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:36

PD, I accept what you say that the practices we have been talking about are not Islamic in their origin. Still a bit iffy about the punishments prescribed in Sharia Law though, but don't know enough about it.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:37

oops!

stitch · 31/12/2005 10:40

ruty, absolutely. most muslims dont understand arabic anywhere near well enough.
butas a religion, islam encourages education. for boys and girls, which would encourag them to understand their faith better.
in pakistan, i know some people who wrap the quran up in expensive cloth, and put it up on a specially made shelf. they wont touch it without having a special bath first etc etc. these peopel may be qutie poor. without indoor plumbing etc.which means that the quran isnt touched particularly often! yet if they knew anything at all about islam, they would know that waht they are doing is wrong. the best form of respectwould be to actually read the quran! even if only a translation of it. iyswim

monkeytrousers · 31/12/2005 10:41

He's right! And unless my logic is flawed (and it very well may be I admit - any other logicians please feel free to butt in) I think you're coming close to invalidating your own agrgument MB. The main claim here has been that Islam is at fault, not the practice of it. Now it all seems to be desending into the claim that all religions are subject to (for want of a better word) malpractice - and if so Islam must be inclused in that.

ruty · 31/12/2005 10:46

No MT, i think that has always been accepted. Anyway, I have only ever argued about my concerns about christianity, as i don't know enough about islam, but it doesn't stop me asking questions. My questions about Islam [in my ignorance] are about how much compassion and mercy overrides punishment. I have stated from the beginning that Christianity is abused all the time by people like Bush and Blair.

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:50

But the practice of it is Sharia law, and area that I ave great probels with , so, not I have not invalidadted my own arguemnt.

If you scan this ever longer thread, you will see that I say that the Five Pillars of Islam are worthy and ethical, but Sharia, which is not (as I understand it) is not one of those 5 pillars. However PD supports Sharia. I have repeatedly asked him for his views on specific areas and he dodges them every time. I stand by what I say, his views (unlike those of Fuzzy and Stitch btw) are self edited to fit his audience.

My issue with PD is he supports and absolute reainbg, which has discriminatory practices. I'd happy to think that these have come from the absorbtion of local practices (as is often the norm in religion) but now they are there PD wan't to keep them. Do I bet he would stand by the Sharia treatment of people who comitted adultery and Homosexuality. Wheras I think that the time has now probably come ro re-evaluate those rulings, something that many Muslims think. Sadly when tey talk about them, they can get death threats from those who disagree with them.

So no, sorry to disapont, I havn't painted myself into a logical corner, just yet

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:50

But the practice of it is Sharia law, and area that I ave great probels with , so, not I have not invalidadted my own arguemnt.

If you scan this ever longer thread, you will see that I say that the Five Pillars of Islam are worthy and ethical, but Sharia, which is not (as I understand it) is not one of those 5 pillars. However PD supports Sharia. I have repeatedly asked him for his views on specific areas and he dodges them every time. I stand by what I say, his views (unlike those of Fuzzy and Stitch btw) are self edited to fit his audience.

My issue with PD is he supports and absolute reainbg, which has discriminatory practices. I'd happy to think that these have come from the absorbtion of local practices (as is often the norm in religion) but now they are there PD wan't to keep them. Do I bet he would stand by the Sharia treatment of people who comitted adultery and Homosexuality. Wheras I think that the time has now probably come ro re-evaluate those rulings, something that many Muslims think. Sadly when tey talk about them, they can get death threats from those who disagree with them.

So no, sorry to disapont, I havn't painted myself into a logical corner, just yet

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 10:50

sorry, computer went odd on me.

SuperPapMammies · 31/12/2005 10:56

blimey ruty your letting your fingers dribble again

Just noticed the thread title has an "e" missing... or is is meant to imply something else

must go and do something constructive

fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 11:02

What has struck me as odd about the ruling of adultery, how many people (thinking about it reasonably).
Would in all fairness be crass enough to have sex in front of four witnesses???

During the time of the Prophet (pbuh), a man entered his home to find his wife in a compromising position with a neighbour. He went straight to the beloved Prophet (pbuh) and told him of this, the Prophet (pbuh) did not reply, so the man repeated the allegation, he repeated it thrice. Then the Prophet (pbuh) said go and find me four witnesses to this, the man replied I can't only I saw it.
The wife was also eventually bought before the Prophet (pbuh) but she refused to confess, so the prophet (pbuh) told the man he could either keep his wife in kindness or divorce from her. The man did the latter, the woman did actually later give birth from this liaison but she was given sole custody of the child and her former husband was not made to give his name to the child. The child was established to have been of that of the neighbour....

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 11:06

But if they were and I acree that crass doesn't even begin to cover it, would it be right to stone them to death?

And given that the punishment holds if people admit to it, an 'out' gay man would ahave to suffer the same fate. (and I realise that the judge would have to warn the man what would happen if he didn't retract his admission btw)

Which brings us neatly round to the original quesyion I put to PD, what are his views on this? My reading would be that Sharia would insist that either a Gay man subsume his sexual drive, lie about it, or suffer death? I don't see why this should be tha case, since his actions are not harming anyone (by definition of something which shouild be prohibited fwiw)

ruty · 31/12/2005 11:07

you know me paps.

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 11:09

Abd it is these Sharia laws that are often used in an anti female way by certain societies......where men know their rights but not their responsibilities. This being the case ,wouldn't reformation and analysis of these laws be a useful starting point?

Are laws that wer first put forwars in tribal societies in the middle ages still 100% relevant in the 21st centuary? I wouldn't say that of the laws in Europe, or the laws of Hinduism. Are Islamis laws unique in their total applicability at all times and places? Because if that is so, that is where I see major problems