Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
ruty · 26/12/2005 21:56

peacedove i'm not at all offended that you consider Christ to be a prophet.

I'm not a great fan of capitalism, as by its very nature it requires a large part of society [and the world] to live in poverty for others to prosper. Christ's teachings are pretty anti capitalist really. Equality before the law is crucial everywhere - and i agree this does not happen.

I am glad that love and care for others are universal..i think the thing about it is loving those that are the most difficult for us to love - our enemies, those we find it impossible to accept, adn so on. If we all did this then society would indeed be very different.

tamba · 26/12/2005 21:57

very intresting thread

ruty · 26/12/2005 22:02

BTW christians don't believe in three gods PD, just the one! But we believe in three manifestations, three experiences of the One God. As God is beyond words and beyond understanding, [and omnipresent] it is a difficult argument to get into.

moondog · 26/12/2005 23:15

Oh dear God!
How did I know that PD would rear his head at this time of year??!!
One man,one agenda.

Heathcliffscathy · 26/12/2005 23:28

mumsnet is mums/parents talking about everything as i understand it, i for one spend most of my time on here engaged in non-parenting conversation (thank goodness).

agree that secular state is a good thing. also agree that the march of capitalism good and bad, but the bad i v v bad.

interesting thread and absolutely not inappropriately timed.

moondog · 26/12/2005 23:29

PD can say what he likes and so can I.

He has some disturbing ideas.

Heathcliffscathy · 26/12/2005 23:31

moondog, just to clarify, that wasn't addressed to you!

what are the disturbing ideas?

moondog · 26/12/2005 23:34

Ni,I know Sophable!

Oh Gawd,if you can be bothered,do a search.
The usual unpleasant misogyny of men of his ilk,albeit disguised under smilies and winks.

Because he is a Muslim and MN is frequented by (by and large) thoughtful people who give posters the benefit of the doubt,he is not hounded off air (so to speak) as he would be if he wasn't a Muslim.

I've sussed him out though.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 08:43

You are not alone.

Just thinking about it, if anyone else, say a Daily Mail reader supported death for murderers, those committing adultery, those taking part in consesual adult gay sex, cutting off hands of those who steal.....how long would the very nice, non-judgental folks on MN last before collectivly exploding And the word of a woman being worth half that of a man....

Wrap that in religion and we all smile nicely

ruty · 27/12/2005 10:21

Has PD actually said all those things martianbishop?

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 11:43

he has said in the past that he agrees with Sharia law, and all of those things are covered by Sharia law. He also says that it is almost imposible to find someone guilty of adultery, for example, as it needs 4 adult witnesses. However, that hasn't stopped it being used quite a bit.

His point would be, I am sure, is that it is being misused by people who are not adhering to the law. Which may well be true, but is of limited comfort to those who have been stoned to death.

I disaprove of the death penalty in any circumstances, and view any such thing, imposed by secular or religious authority with great concern and horror.

fuzzywuzzy · 27/12/2005 11:49

Pd is right though, rules pertaining to adultery are only applicable if four reliable witnesses have seen the person in the act. And the punishment of death is applicable if the participants are married (obviously to people other then eachother), otherwise the punishment is flogging.
And a woman's restimony being half, is applicable only in instances where a woman would not normally be conversant in whatever she is testifying, there are isntances when a woman and only a woman's testimony will suffice.

I doubt if Islam was as clearly misogynistic as many believe, that any woman let alone one bought up in the west, would consider it as her religion, and yet women are converting to Islam at a greater rate in the West than men.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 11:55

But to have a blanket ruling? Why? What circumstances would all women be realtivly ignorent? My understanding is that Islam is relativly equal regarding work and education, so why then, would a woman be automaticaly less trustworthy, or informed, than a man?

Anf tbh whice I would he horrified at the thought of two married people copulating in front of others, in an adultarous liason (smile, trust me, I would be) I don;t think that it would be right to stone them to death!

And there are several womenin Nigeria under threat of death (while others have been killed) simply because they were pregnant outside of wedlock. Granted, this is an aberant use of Sharia law, but given that all Humans can have the tendency to misuse laws, I feel that this is agood reason for not having the death penalty. And I feel just the same about the dp in Ameria etc etc.

Since Humans a falable, all over the world, I find such absolute laws a great concern.

moondog · 27/12/2005 11:58

Fair point fuzzy,but would say this is due to the vulgarities and axcesses of our own corrupt Western style society.
Islam provides some sort of refuge.
I don't think running away from it is the answer though (ie feeling you have to hide under a headscarf). Changing men's (mostly) behaviour is.

What I dislike so intensely about the points PD makes,is that he seems to take it for granted that men are animals and amongst other things,need multiple sexual partners.

Yuck

SenoraPartridgeinaPearTree · 27/12/2005 12:11

fuzzywuzzy - it doesn't really matter how many witnesses are required. how many men have been sentenced to a stoning lately? (also isn't pregnancy considered evidence enough in some cases?)

I do feel that islam, as it is interpreted by the majority of its followers (especially those who believe in sharia law) is mysoginistic. as is christianity.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 12:16

Pregnancy alone has been used as justification in Nigeria. A teenage single mother was sentenced to, and recieved, 100 lashes, in, I think 2002/3.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 12:19

Tis is from the Amnesty International website....there is much more, but I havetried to keep it short.

' Discrimination on grounds of gender: Under the Maliki school of thought, which dominates the interpretation of Sharia in northern Nigeria, pregnancy is considered sufficient evidence to condemn a woman for Zina, an offence which is to be read as adultery or as voluntary premarital sexual intercourse. The oath of the man denying having had sexual intercourse with the woman is often considered sufficient proof of innocence unless four independent and reputable eye-witnesses declare his involvement in the act of voluntary sexual intercourse. Safiya Hussaini was sentenced to death in her first trial for adultery on the basis of her pregnancy.

Based on the cases of Bariya Ibrahim Magazu and Safiya Hussaini, Baobab for Women's human rights and Amnesty International emphasise that Sharia Law as practised in the northern states of Nigeria, does not protect women from possible sexual assault and coercion, instead it is willing to punish the victims of such assault. In both cases the Court has not pursued the allegations of coercion. The clear implication of this decision is that men violate and rape girls and women with impunity as long as they make sure that there are no witnesses of their crime. On the other hand, women and girls who are victims of rape or coercion have their situation further compounded. They will be subjected to charges of Zina and false accusation. This clearly violates women's rights, justice and security while protecting those men who harrass, molest and rape women and girls.'

Mud · 27/12/2005 12:37

youir posts are too long so cant read them

but from some of the other posts ahve realised you ahve the answers onf some fundamental questions regarding islam and i have one. why do muslime hate jews? (I know mnot all, but all muslim countries seem to)

peacedove · 27/12/2005 13:06

Mud, sorry for my long posts.

Muslims are NOT to hate Jews or Christians.

They hate Zionism and Israel. What was done to the Jews by the Nazis was NOT the fault of Muslims or Palestinians, and among the Palestinians you will find both Muslims and Christians.

Muslims like to see Justice. The creation of Israel was seen by the Muslims as a colonial enterprise. As a compensation to the persecution of Jews, the land for a Jewish state should have been given to them from Germany, and maybe some other countries that have persecuted them.

The hate today is because of the continuation of this colonialist state.

OP posts:
peacedove · 27/12/2005 13:14

Perhaps I have not been able to explain what the sharia is all about.

The focus is wrongly on some punishments (both by the implementers, and by the distractors) very wrongly.

Sharia is about an interest-free society.
Sharia is about helping the needy without making them feel inferior.
Shaira is about equality of the ruler and the ruled.

Muslim countries are feudal, and are fast turning capitalist, what they are implementing is not sharia. Sharia forbids lying, and you have said that people can be accused falsely. So what is being implemented is not sharia, but feudalism.

You attack the wrong thing here by attacking sharia. What should be under attack is the unjust system the third world countries live in.

stoning adulterers to death is in the Old Testament. Islam has put the restriction of four adult witnesses for the act, making it well-nigh impossible.

moondog, what does "sussed him out" mean?

If it wern't for your anti-Islam and anti-prophet comments, I wouldn't be here at all.

Thanks for admitting the vulgarities and excesses of the Western societies. People turn to Islam because they see the truth in it, and do not confuse the behavior of Muslim societies with Islam.

MB you have studied islam, and you know that there aren't blanket rulings. Islam has provided a lot of valid actions, based upon the circumstances. For that, scholars are to be consulted.

OP posts:
fuzzywuzzy · 27/12/2005 13:17

Pregnancy isn't actually enough to indict a person of adultory...strangely enough, the woman must either confess or again there must be four witnesses. The cases where these are used is not actually within Shariah law (as far as my limited knowledge goes).
I can't answer for the misuse of Islamic law, mostly it's men who sit on the councils and they are the ones who order the Butchering of Islamic laws.
Interestingly, in Saudi Arabia, it's not possible for a girl to be educated pass High school level. In Islam women and men are both ordered to acquire educations. A lot of Islamic law was learnt from the wives of The Prophet(pbuh), they taught men who travelled from afar to learn from them.

MB As I said in some cases a male testimony is needed at other times a woman's testimony is needed, there are cases where a man is not involved in the testifying at all.

With regards the Hijaab, men are also supposed to dress modestly and both men and women are meant to lower their gaze.
I choose to adopt the Hijaab, many women don't I'm not going to condemn them I don't expect condemnation from them either.
Did anyone on here read about the American women (non-Muslim) who adopted the hijaab (for something like a week) I think soon after 9/11, to show there support for Muslim women?? I'll see if I can find the article I read, they wrote newspaaper articles describing their experiences. Very interesting.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:35

Under the best 'use' of Sharia you are, I am quite sure, correct. But the reality of the situation is that pregnancy alone is being used as proof enough.

I just worry when religious doctrine is used by faliable people (very often Men) to impose their own views on how society should be run.

And I disagree with any use of capital punishment, since people are falable.

I have no issues with people choosing to waer hajib, but there are many women who have it forced upon them, and I find that as unpalitable as woen being denied the right to choose to wear it.

Sharia law isn't equal in its treatment of men and women though, is it? Men have the automatic right to divorce, women do not, unless it is written into their marriage contract. And women's testimony isn't given the same credibility as men's. And as a woman I find that unpalitable. And would do so regardless of its origin.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:38

I don't care if it is difficult, the death penalty is, IMHO, just wrong.

So if a gay man admits to having sex with a man (which I feel he is totaly entitled to do) it is right to kill him? Under sharia law this would be the punisment.

PD, what would you say?

fuzzywuzzy · 27/12/2005 13:44

Women are allowed to divorce regardless of whether ti's in their marriage contract or not. Some choose to have it in their marriage contracts, ie I am divocred if you do such and such (insert stipulation).

I'd say Western laws were fallible too, and depending on the judge sitting in on the case the penlaty can be wildly erratic.
women don't appear to get much of an equal treatment i nWestern laws.

Women should be treated with equality and respect, however the people sitting in on the courts are either not well versed in the law they are inforcing (doubtful), or they choose to turn a blind eye (more likely).
That doesn't mean that the actual law is fau;lty more like the persons sitting in places of authority are. But as long as people sit around accepting this than it will continue.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:47

Oh, I quite agree. Hoever the inequality isn't enhrined in the law IYSWIM. In fact sexual descrimination is illegal (a fact often ignored, I grant you ). Bad enough to have sexual inequality, worse again to have it enhrined in law, religion as well as tradition, IMHO.

Swipe left for the next trending thread