Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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 · 31/12/2005 11:17

Splendid post of 10:50 am MB,just splendid.
Your scientific training and logical thought processes are in great evidence.

Would agree. I admire Stitch and FW for the way that they tussle with and really think about things. It strikes me as being a prerequisite for useful spiritual discussion.

PD takes a pedantic dydactic approach which does nothing for me-little evidence of individual thought or endeavour.
And,as you have pointed out,from the very beginning,he dips in and out of these discussions and seizes on points which he considers important.
Stitch and Fuzzywuzzy take it all-the rough with the smooth.

Where are you from PD? I am assuming Pakistan?

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 11:33

Thats the thing tho isn't it, Fuzzy and Stitch have entered into a real, repectful (I hope I have been at any rate) discussion, whch has been educational, informative and very interesting. PD just seems to say 'This is how it is, because' and then fails to explain the 'because'. then we get, 'Oh you have disagreed with me, Islamophobe'. And tries to close down the discussion. A trait he shares with some Isralis, who attempt to close a discussion on Palistine with the worse 'Anti -Semite'

10/50 post was almost unreadanle tho! Crap typing skills

moondog · 31/12/2005 11:36

Yes,you are a modicum of respectabilty MB.
That's what Welsh blood does for you!

(Are you celebrating tonight btw??)

fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 11:40

Mb you've made a good point re; Shariah, will get back must cook fish before it walks off of it's own accord.....

stitch · 31/12/2005 11:41

i actually dont think it is right to stone someone to death.
but, and this is the faith part of it. if i believe in god, and believe that islam is his final word to people. and he is the supreme being, then i have no choice but to go along with what it says in the quran.
fwiw, my own opinion, and i know that in the grand schem of things my opinion doesnt count for anything, but here it is anyways. i think the stoning and the lashes are meant to be a deterrent rather than anything else. the lure of the unknown is recognised by having a lesser punishment for premarital sex, and the ridiculous number of witnesses to the actual act needed make it almost impossible to get a conviction. and since the requirment is four witnesses, i can see someone saying that dna evidence showing any subsequent progeny are not the husbands as being inadequate proof for a stoning. iyswim

stitch · 31/12/2005 11:43

o yes, both myself and fuzzy are wonderful people

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 11:49

for an irritating little blue alien, you are just fab!

And at which point, I will do what I tried to do many. many postings ago, bow out!

I do enjoy these discussions.....comes of being raised a Welsh Baptist, who was expected to quote capetr and verse, jsut like in your family Stitch....Funny how we are all so similar in the end I then made it worse be becoming a scientist, with an abiding interest in religion. Not a situation that leads to my keeping my big mouth shut!

So I will bid a fond farewell to you on this thread....but please tell me if PD ever answers my questions will you?

To Stitch and Fuzzy, it has been most interesting, many thanks for a robust discussion.

stitch · 31/12/2005 11:52

and there is the hadith about the woman who said she had committed adultery and the prophet said she could take her confession back. but she didnt want to. she said she had repented. well, she was pregnant and theprophet said that punishment must wait till after she had given birth. after birth she still insisted on her confession, even though mohamed said she could retract it. but she didnt want to. so he said the baby needed her to feed it. so she breastfed the child for two years. at the end of which she still insisted. she was stoned to death then. some of her blood splashed on someone who made some nasty comment about her being unclean. the prophet said something along the lines of her being as pure as the day she was born because of her sincere repentance and her going to heaven.

i wish i could quote chapter and verse but my memory is a bit hazy. but what i do remember from this is that she didnt have to confess.

mb and mt, i think pd is out on a mission to convert. whereas fuzzy and myself are regular posters on mn who are muslims interested in talking/discussin our religion with other educated, eloquent women who dont have an agenda.
had you been saying nasty things about islam, i would probly either not have gotten involved on this thread, or said nasty things back! (i am oh so diplomatic!)

Blandmum · 31/12/2005 11:54

couldn';t resist a last post, Stitch your last paragraph is , IMHO, 100% right, and that is why PD irritates me

moondog · 31/12/2005 12:01

Me too-but not you and FW obviously.

I await the return of PD.....

Almost feeling sorry for him now.

Best wishes PD and a Happy New Year!!

peacedove · 31/12/2005 12:10

MB Disagreement can be with civility, without doubting the other person's integrity. One can tell the other person what one finds offensive.

A reading of your posts indicated hostility, that is all. I have this failing that I stay away if there is hostility, for there already is too much on my plate. You later explained about what you saw as offensive, and I have explained further. I hope that has been sorted out. I accepted your explanation, and if you do not accept mine, but still doubt my motives, there wouldn't be any point in continuing, would there.
I would make a very bad "interrogatee". I would shut up at the first sign of hostile attitude

The reason I haven't replied on the Sharia law question is not selfediting*. It is because I am not learned in these. What I understand is that Sharia is much more than law. The sources are the Quran and the authentic Hadith. In many countries what has been put at place as Sharia is secondary and tertiary and texts even further removed from the originals, and those bits that are not in conflict with the original sources should be removed.

You talked of Ijtihad. Ijtihad is not for everyone. I cannot claim the right to do it. It requires real knowledge, scholarship, and I may add humulity. Many scholars are being produced in particular schools of thought, like what MB said she read on a Maliki site. It cannot be done by non-Muslims for us, nor by those who do not know the Quran, Hadith, Seerah and the applications thereof. Of course, today's knowledge has also to be factored in, as it would bring insight in certain cases. For example, if scientific proof were available that homosexuality is gene driven, then the individual is not at fault.

The ruling on this can only come from such scholars who have studied this problem from the original sources, and do understand the conclusive evidence from science. I have searched but haven't come across any view of the scholars except like MB, one site saying this is Maliki stand. Why, what are the reasons and justifications for this ruling, I do not know.

I think the real issue is whether one accepts Divine Right, or man's right to make laws. I do not accept that man has a right to make all laws. I believe that mankind has traced these steps over and over again, and for me the manmadelaws have to stay out of conflict with Divine laws.

I am sure fw or stitch can give a more informed treatment.

I was born in India MD but should it matter?

and a Happy New Year to all.

OP posts:
peacedove · 31/12/2005 12:14

stistch, that is absolutely wrong. I am not out to convert. And I am not a regular poster. Does one have to be?

OP posts:
fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 12:36

Stitch with regards scientific evidence being enough to stone someone to death, in my earlier badly remembered hadith, the woman's son was proven to be that of her neighbour, but as far as I can recall she still was not held to account for her actions by the Prophet (pbuh), as she did not confess nor did her husband produce the required number of witnesses.

I think the number of witnesses required has a lot to do with ensuring a woman's reputation is not falsely ripped to shreds.

I have a friend, when at uni a rejected lover went and told everyone that she'd slept with a hundred people, one night at a club a person she'd never met before accused her of being all sorts and spat in her face....she did get her revenge in the end.

My point with the above examples is that even in modern times in a place like the UK, people will look down on a woman who they think has slept around, but the same is never said of a man.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2005 12:39

pd - good job cos it ain't working!

interesting discussion tho!

peacedove · 31/12/2005 12:49

and those bits that are not in conflict with the original sources should be removed

sorry, the bold not is extra, and is the opposite of what I wanted to say.

OP posts:
SuperPapMammies · 31/12/2005 13:21

well we all know MD is welsh, PD is Indian born and I am a kiwi ...

monkeytrousers · 31/12/2005 13:24

I have to agree on the hostility too..

ruty · 31/12/2005 13:43

i am concerned because, although it seems that religious tolerance would be acceptable under an ideal islamic society, we would all have to live under sharia law. Now, in my religion it is unacceptable under any circumstances to stone someone to death. But if I lived under sharia law, i would have to live with that threat and possibly see it happen to other people, even if only in very rare circumstances. i do not want to commit adultery because i love my husband, not because i fear punishment. this seems a very brutalized and low idea of humanity.

peacedove · 31/12/2005 14:04

why do we have laws at all?

Nice people stay away from fraud, taking other people's property, perjury, murder, ...

but some people do commit crimes, and society tries them, and punishes those found guilty.

If laws are broken, and that too in front of witnesses, or being broadcast that one is doing it, that is not just breaking the law, that is rebellion and incitement to rebel.

What Islam says is, if the crime stays hidden, and the committer does not tell society about it, and repents before God, he will be pardoned by God, and society will not know enough to punish him.

When he publicises his crime or waywardness, others may be encouraged to follow, and that is where the concern comes in.

In the Hadith quoted by stitch and/or fw, the woman who had committed adultery admitted it of her own accord, and wanted to receive punishment. She was given many a chance over three years (?) to avoid the punishment, but she still wanted to be purified.

And not all have to live under the sharia. In the case of non-Muslims there is precedent of self-governing communities, living side by side, but having differnt sets of laws. SOme laws have to be common, of course, but not necessarily all.

OP posts:
tamba · 31/12/2005 14:52

Quote

"What Islam says is, if the crime stays hidden, and the committer does not tell society about it, and repents before God, he will be pardoned by God, and society will not know enough to punish him.

When he publicises his crime or waywardness, others may be encouraged to follow, and that is where the concern comes in. "

Does that mean, for example, that its ok to be a peadafile as long as no one finds out?

I know thats an extreme but I am jumping in and out of this thread as i do not know enough about the topic to talk about it in depth.

fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 15:40

Tamba that rule only applies if the crime is something that does not hurt another. EG adultery. You aren't actually causing harm to anyone indulging in it.

Peadophelia is a different kettle of fish entirely.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2005 15:49

that's a moot point fw!

DoesntTheFestiveSeasonDragOn · 31/12/2005 16:07

Excuse me? "Adultery. You aren't actually causing harm to anyone indulging in it" Er... I think you're mistaken there!

fuzzywuzzy · 31/12/2005 18:01

OK this will be my last post on this thread as I am not qualified to answer detailed questions with regards Islamic Fiqh.

By my previous post, I meant, that if a couple committed adultery and they both regretted and sincerely repented, than if they had not been seen, they need not go and confess to a judge and jury.

I would say that in this case the situation would be best sorted out between their respective spouses, ie whether they could continue with their marriages or part. Does that make sense??

With respect to crimes like peadophilia etc, it is different entirely.
The crime would be judged much the same as it is in Western societies, the victim would tell someone and evidence gathered etc.

ruty · 31/12/2005 19:59

i like the idea of self governing communities PD if Islam became the majority in government and population. I don't know where this has worked though...