Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
stitch · 27/12/2005 13:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:52

(off topic, stitch, you are back as yourself! don't take the xmas nameto 12th night then? )

stitch · 27/12/2005 13:53

just to add on something that pd said. four men, or 8 women have to witness the act of adultery before the punishment can be applied.
imagine doing it with one witness, let alone 8 people watching.!

stitch · 27/12/2005 13:54

( i got a bit sick of being a blue alien without the cute connotations! plus, no one seemed to know who i was!)

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:55

But would you really want to stone them to death if they did? I think that they would be horrid to do it, but not worthy of death.

And as I understand it, if you confess then you don't need the witnesses. So an 'out' gay man would be punishable by death.

vitomum · 27/12/2005 13:57

Is peacedove a man then? he mentions a DH in another thread?

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 13:57

He is a man, I'm sure he is.

fuzzywuzzy · 27/12/2005 13:59

Stitch really??? Dp's cousin said they had to leave Jiddah as their daughter couldn't get any further education there....

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 14:00

They can only be taught by women tho, (and/or TV link ups I think) so there might not have been qualified women to teach there??? Or not teach the right course possibly?

stitch · 27/12/2005 14:00

mb, i must admit i havent really though about the whole homosexuality thing. i am for the civil ceremonies, but not in any passionate way.

most religions ban sodomy. but not lesbianism as such. im not sure why, other than perhaps because they think women cant have sex together? bit like queen victoria. i didnt think that the punishment for adultery was the same as the punishment for sodomy?

vitomum · 27/12/2005 14:01

that seems to be the assumption on this thread. But if he / she has a DH?

stitch · 27/12/2005 14:04

no, its coz the saudis are just rascist. you cant go to university there unles you are saudi. a small minority of lebanese palestinians are allowed. but basically, unless you are saudi, you can t go to university there.
there is no shortage of superbly qualified teachers.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 14:08

Unders sharia law lesbianism, because it doesn't involve penetration is 'only' punised by 100 lashes.

Male homosexuality is punishable by death. If the man confesses 4 times he can be put to deathm but the judge has to warn the accused of the outcome of continuing to confess.

So an 'out' gay man in Islam is impossible. He either has to lie about his sexuality or risk death.

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 14:54

Ruty, my comments weren?t directed at you, just the general drift of fundamentalist, reactionary and sometimes hysterical comment that always seems to eventually come with debates on Islam. My main point is there is a hypocrisy in it that many people seem unaware of. Like I?ve said before in other threads of this type, Islam is no more or less misogynistic than other religions ? Christianity has become less so as the societies it functions in have become more secular (a necessity as women both became consumers and entered the consumer market as workers ? that?s my link to religion and capitalism ? and it?s far from being a fully formed idea ? that capitalism will to some extent support and promote secularism.)

ruty · 27/12/2005 14:57

well Christ is very clear that mercy and compassion override judgement and punishment. it is for God to judge, not us. human beings are flawed, as so should not be able to make decisions such as who is deserving of capital punishment. christ made it clear that stoning to death is unacceptable, as is judging someone unless you are totally faultless yourself [impossible.] Christianity has become misogynistic - Christ himself was not misogynisitic - he was the very opposite, but his teachings have become manipulated to suit the motives of a an oppressive society. I cannot comment on sharia law. I find it very worrying that there are educated, spiritual people who believe in some circumstances it is right to cut off a hand or stone someone to death [ I do not believe all Muslims think this?] One thing is fact though - Islam is a fast growing religion, and we have to find ways of dialogue rather than estrangement to live together. If as Peacedove says, religous tolerance is important in Islam, at least this dialogue should be able to continue.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 14:58

I don't think that this debate is hysterical (a word grounded in misogyny if ever there was one ), but in reasoned fact.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 15:01

Ruty, there are definatly Mulsoms who want to see Sharia law reformed. I'm just interested to hear what PD thinks. As yet he hasn't answered me re Gay rights. I'm fairly sure (but will be very happy to be corrected) that he is not in favour of Gay rights.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 15:03

sorry, Muslims.

peacedove · 27/12/2005 15:09

moondog never mind about the "sus" bit. I have located what it means, and where did the word originate from.

MB thanks for being clear. You had suspicions about my motives and ruty's post should have cleared those up, but you still agree with moondog about "sussing me out". Good!

Considering that you are quite "knowledgable" about Islam, it would be a waste answering you.

Thanks again for the clarity.

OP posts:
Blandmum · 27/12/2005 15:16

No, you are yet again seeking to protray a particular viewpoint that suits your world view.

My feelings are these. You put forward those views which you feel will be taken positivly my the generaly lberal members of mumsnet, while keeping quiet about those aspects of your belifef that people would find distasteful or objectionalble.

Which is why I asked you about Sharia, Gay rights and your views, which you again have side stepped.

Becaise I bet they don't agree with the vies of most of the mnetter who have supported you. But I am genuinely happy to be corrected and to be told that you don't approve of stoning out gay Muslims.

stitch · 27/12/2005 15:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 15:26

I am just very interested in what PD thinks about this, and other issues. He is excellent at pointing out the positive apects of Islam(while I will freely admit are many and varied) however, when you get to areas that are counter to ehat most people think in Brirain taday, he becomes rather quieter in his views. I'd be facinated to know what they are.

He is happy (and obviously quite free) to post on MN, he has quite a bit of support from people who would possibly not be so accomodation if such views came from, say, and evangelical Christian. I'm interested to know what he feelings are.

I realise that many Muslims are seeking to 'liberalise' (for want of a much better word) many aspects of Sharia law. I wonder if PD is one of them?

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 15:27

and a paedophile, abuses, I don't think that a gay man or wpman does this if he or she has consenting sex with another adult, do you?

ruty · 27/12/2005 15:32

stitch sorry but you are wrong about gay people choosing that way of life. they are born gay, just as you or I are born heterosexual. So its exactly the same as someone telling you, 'You cannot be heterosexual, you have to start having relationships with people of the same sex, otherwise you are commiting a mortal sin.' Could you change? I know of a gay vicar's son, whose father was a big evangelical christian, and who put his teenage son through hell in the manner of exorcisms and 'purifying' acts. He damaged his son beyond belief. He tried so much of his life to be what his father wanted him to be but denying his whole self drove him to the brink. This behaviour towards those who are different to you is against anything Christ taught.

stitch · 27/12/2005 15:33

not at all. consensual sex between two people is imo nobodies business but their own.

im just trying to say that god gave choices. a paedophile who abuses a child chooses to do so. he is not forced into it, (unlike the poor child) AND GOD DOes not judge a person on thinking certain thoughts, but on acting on them.

many gay people believe that they are born that way, and have no choice in the matter. in islam, this isnt the case. no one is born 'gay'. they choose to be. and as i said before, sodomy is prohibited, whether between two men, or a man and a woman, (im assuming that i correctly understand the word to mean anal sex) or two women. i dont remeber that ther e is a prescribed punishment for this.

Swipe left for the next trending thread