Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 · 27/12/2005 16:28

MT I don;'t think that has been a public excution in the UK since the mid 1850s....as ever I am happy to be corrected. 150 years is quite a while. Public excecutions still happen in Saudi.

There has never been any form of legal excicution in my life time, and I'm one of the older mothers of MN And even when there were excicutions, they were for murder, not for loving someone. THis is, I think an essential difference between PDs 'Ideal Society' and mine.

I'd be interested on his comments. Which I am still waiting for

150 is before my great grandparents were born....hardly 'quite recently'

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 16:30

Sorry, last public excicution in the UK was in 1868. Still now recent though[ smile]

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 16:40

It's not too long ago I reckon, not by personal standards I agree, but as far as the morals of societies go - well until recently the US a fledgling democracy.

Blandmum · 27/12/2005 16:44

But something that I am still profoundly greatful for, and feel that this had benefited our society. And I do feel that 4 generations is a goodly time

I look at pictures from the 60s (when I was born) and that seems eons ago. I read a book published in the 50s not so long ago and was horrified at it's casual racism, It doesn't take long for changes to become embeded.

chestnutter · 27/12/2005 18:00

Peacedove - the problem with what you said starts when you say that the Jews just took someone else's land because of the Holocaust. Zionism began a long time before the Holocaust and Jews were moving to what is now Israel and buying - yes, buying, not taking - land there since the 19th century. And why there? Because there was a Jewish state there 2000 years ago and ever since the Romans kicked them out Jews have been saying prayers about going back to Jerusalem. It's not as if someone just put a pin in a map. You saying the Jews should have been given land in Germany is not only absurd, it's also offensive because it denies all of this historical and religious connection to Israel.

btw, I only started reading this thread because I was interested in what you were saying about Islam -I really didn't want to get onto this subject.

stitch · 27/12/2005 19:09

cn, my problem with the state of israel is what it is doing to the palestinians.
my friends mother went out into her garden to tend to her roses. she was shot for breaking curfew
kids are not able to go to school, coz of the curfeww. fine if its for a short while. but when its been over a year? you will end up with more than a generation that is illiterate.
when i was in school in the eighties, i had a palestinian freind, who spoke about beirut, 'if you get shot, you get shot!

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 19:51

While I see what you're getting at Stitch, I don't think it helps to personalise the situation as there will be horror stories of equal validity on both sides but it seems it is difficult to discuss the issue without upsetting someone and it's in full knowledge of this that I tentatively ask the following..What confuses me about the situation as a whole is that, as you say CN, there was a Jewish state in existence there 2000 years ago - lands across the globe have been subject to invasion before and after that time, the british isles included. The Palestinians were also there, am I wrong? There is much rhetoric about the right to a Jewish homeland - now, I don't really know what that means (yet I know it's central to Zionism) and I'm not sure it could ever be a valid or moral claim if it meant the ousting of populations (in a different era the validity and morality of such an act was unimportant I know, but we don't live in such times anymore and international law tells us it is wrong). The current moral indignation appears to stem from this, no? This in no way excuses the Palestinian strategy either. Trying to understand something isn?t the same as condoning or excusing it, which is often the accusation. In my experience of Peacedove's posts he is certainly not an anti-Semite (we've discussed the inaccuracy of the word on other posts too)

BTW, has anyone seen Jean-Luc Godard?s new film Notre Musique? It uses the backdrop of Bosnia as a metaphor to talk about the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 19:55

And Vitomum, just to clear it up - Peacedove is a man - the "DH" occured as he was quoting another mumsnetter and misplaced some quotation marks on another thread. I had to look at it a few times.

chestnutter · 27/12/2005 20:15

Stitch - you're right that things like what happened to your friend's mother are totally wrong. As MT says, there are horror stories on both sides - eg suicide bombings on school buses. I don't see much point in quoting them at each other.

MT - without going into an extended history lesson...it's not the case that Israel could only be created by expelling Palestinians. In 1947 the UN proposed that the land be split between Jews and Arabs (ie Palestinians) - two states. the Jews accepted the plan, the Arabs (Palestinians + other Arab states) didn't. In 1948 the Jews declared independence in their bit of land that the UN had given them - ie Israel. The Arab states invaded it saying they would throw the Jews into the sea. During the war that followed (which Israel won), lots of Palestinians left their homes - some forced by Israel, some just fleeing the fighting, some encouraged to leave by the Arab armies (eg "we'll get rid of the Jews and you can come back to your villages"). If Israel had lost the war, you would have had the same thing happening in reverse. Not very nice, but the kind of thing that happens in ethnic civil wars. But compared to eg Bosnia, the death toll was much lower.

Sorry for long post!

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 20:41

But like PD alluded to, it is a colonial issue, is it not?

monkeytrousers · 27/12/2005 20:44

brief history of Arab/Israeli conflict for those who don't know this site was agreed as impartial and accurate on another thread about the issue

chestnutter · 28/12/2005 09:55

Thanks - I hadn't seen that site.

It's not colonial. The Jews who migrated from the 1880s onwards were fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe. It's not as if they were sent there by the colonial powers. In the 1930s & 40s Britain restricted Jewish immigration (despite the Nazi persecution) and by the time Britain withdrew the Jews were fighting a guerilla war against the British army - hardly the behaviour of colonial allies.

stitch · 28/12/2005 09:58

werent we discussin homosexuality? what happened to that?

Blandmum · 28/12/2005 10:04

This is MN , where threads can have more twists and turns than a twisty-turny thing

I'll be interested in PD's answer, if and when I get it.

ruty · 28/12/2005 11:08

find the whole Israel question very difficult. i think the Jewish people do have a claim to Israel historically, and if Muslims see the Old Testament as a sacred text then surely they can understand the Jewish claim to the land? but they way the Israeli govt has behaved ever since is sickening. Totally unacceptable, and from the way the West has supported Israel's actions, no wonder Muslims feel betrayed.

AS far as homosexuality goes, well, it is like trying to discuss the issue with an evangelical christian. There really is no room for discussion, is there? Unless you are gay yourself, or have experienced someone at close hand who is gay, you probably don't realise what it really is to be gay. i don't like it when people make judgements about people they literally have no idea about.

CometheytoldmepapapaPapillon · 28/12/2005 11:23

Greetings All

Far to busy with baby and toddler for indepth conversations. We are all very well. Tigermoth (ds) has grown just over 1.5kg in one month!!!

Peace

ruty · 28/12/2005 11:32

what are you feeding him paps!

moondog · 28/12/2005 11:44

Hi Papillon! Glad all is well chez vous.
I am wondering what PD has to say about homosexuality too and agree with earlier point about him being uncharacteristically taciturn on the less savoury aspects of Islam.

Lol at his assertion that he is only here because of me. Oooh how flattering.....

Blandmum · 28/12/2005 11:55

You are just so darned attractive cariad!

BTW are you still in Turkey or in Wales? I've lost track

moondog · 28/12/2005 11:58

Oright hmb???
I am in Wales at present-lovely sunny day,robins on my garden wall and frost on the fields....
Just gorgeous.....

Blandmum · 28/12/2005 12:03

Fab!

It is snowing in the East Midlands. They kids will be off this afternoon with friends and their dads playing in the snow while the mums 'prepare' tea. ie drink some fizz and gossip!

All of my posts to PD are basicaly to try to get him to tell us what he really thinks. I have the stong fealing he soft peddals all the bits he knows qould get MN hopping mad And I bet when he does people will think him a little less 'fluffy'. But as I keep posting, I'm happy to be proved wrong. I'll bet next months salery his 'ideal world' doesn't include 'out' Gays

moondog · 28/12/2005 12:08

Sounds lovely. Doubt PD would approve though of the alcohol and frivolous wasting of time. Shouldn't you be beating carpets or something?

Exactly hmb. PD has made some interesting points (although there is a whole lot of cutting and pasting going on) but he avoids the truly pressing question which is what I find irritating, not the fact that he is a prosletysing Muslim.

I would expect a fundamental Christian to undergo the same sort of rigorous grilling.

But of course when we don't play by his rules he sulks and tells us that we are anti-Islam.

Blandmum · 28/12/2005 12:16

Quite. Why else the posting on Christmas day. And he is obviously out for converts.....if felt his protestations to the contrat=ry rather weak. And Islam acticvly seaks converts (sorry reverts...and I find that rather patronising if I'm being honest)

His out is always,'if you question me like that it is because you are a racisist who thinks all Muslims are terrorists'. When the truth of the matter is that I'd do the same to anyone who tried to convert me.

Our house was almost blacklisted by the Mormons and the JWs and my father (a devout Welsh baptist who really knew his bible) loved to discus things with them.....the mormons ended up sending their Boss round

moondog · 28/12/2005 12:20

rofl at encounter with Mormon boss.That is hysterical!

You are so right about PD,am nodding vigorously at all you say.
The Christmas day thing really pissed me off too.

moondog · 28/12/2005 12:22

And I will always cherish his recent gem.
He told us that 'even ugly Muslims wear headscarves'.

Errr......righto!!!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread