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:
monkeytrousers · 28/12/2005 13:15

Merry xmas Mooney but I for one don't mind PD's posts, whether he's trying to convert us or not (I'm trying to convert everyone to evolutionary theory BTW) - and IMHO, he's trying to enlighten us about Islam more than anything. You two just don't get on but lets not allow things to descend into a slagging match again please - can't you just avoid each other?

I serioulsy don't understand the degree of hostility though - I think there is more to it at times than we'd like to believe..Is he 'sus' because he's a man, a muslim or both? One things for sure, he isn't magic and can't convert us by sleight of hand just by reading his posts. So why the big deal? I felt for all her tenacity Peachskin was hounded off the site too. I'm going to be so unpopular now, I just know it..hey ho..

sevensuzyswongsaswimming · 28/12/2005 13:23

Well you would never be invited to teach grade school in Kansas Monkeytrousers but I dont' think you will be unpopular in fluffy cuddly huggy MN

Blandmum · 28/12/2005 13:46

I feel he is suspect because I have the stong feeling that he is doing a lot of self censorship, he puts forwards those things that he feels there is a natural audeince for in the liberal fields of MN, and plays down those areas that most of us would find offensive, if not threatening.

I think he enjoys 'teaching' us in a semi patronising way, we are 'only' women after all. The Mumsy comment 'ugly muslims wear the veil', his reference to my thinking all Muslims were terrorists. He has a nice little packed view of how he thinks we are and it rattles him when we don't play ball.

At which point he calls you an Islamophome and knobs off. Well tough totty sez I. If he wants to preach he is fully intitled. Just as I am to sak him the questions he always seems to duck

peacedove · 28/12/2005 14:12

MB, It is my fault for having a trusting nature. I misjudged you as a fair person. You still do not accept what ruty has backed me on, that she asked her question on Christmas eve. In any case looking at her post would have told you the time of her asking the question. You should be asking her, a practicing Christian, why she asked that question at that particular time. Yet you keep insisting my timing was provocative. I find the "sussed out" bit very offensive. You cap it with me "looking out" con(re)verts".

With that mistrusting mind of yours I see no reason to keep justifying myself or to keep explaining to you. In any case you have a fairly good knowledge of Islam, so you don't need me to enlighten you.

I answer those who ask questions in good faith. Or I may reply to a particularly nasty post about Islam.

ruty, to answer very precisely, there are differences in laws, but I had said I will talk of them later. The differences stem from who one thinks is the ultimate authority for lawmaking - man or God. That can be developed further but not necessarily soon. Some questions cannot be answered simply, and long posts are rather difficult to compose. Plus I will be busy, and may not have the time to research and collect my thoughts. Also many question we do leave to the scholars.

CN but I do not accept your logic. Zionism and Jewishness are two totally different things, and the Balfour declaration was a colonialist power giving away what wasn't its to begin with. Jews, presently living there have a right to stay on.

MT don't know if I posted this thought earlier, but sometimes I think of the particle and the wave theories of light. So, I think evolution may have occurred in some species, and not in others. Haven't done any research, though.

OP posts:
Normsnockers · 28/12/2005 14:27

Message withdrawn

Tortington · 28/12/2005 14:32

i find it interesting to get others perspective and i think peacedove has been very rational about his posts - for whatever reason.

i like to gain an insight into other religeons - i wouldnt sit myself down and read a book on it - am sure it would bore me to tears, however i worked with THE best example of a muslim man i have ever come accross. i am catholic and he never minded asnwering patiently my many questions, and in turn he had many questions which i answered ( as best i could) i very much enjoyed these discussions which led eachof us to have a better understanding of the other. i came to the conclusion that our religeons wern't that different - maybe in the small print and rituals but on the big things - like oh i dunno - blowing the shit out of someone ( IRA, al kaieda) was just plain wrong.

i think that islam is being demonised in our society today and i think this has a lot to do with american foreign policy.

i remember not so long ago the IRA blowing manchester to pieces. and still they collected money openly in america. I never knew a catholic who agreed with the way they were doing things - even the irish ones. i would hope this is the same in moslim society? is it peacedove? there are of course the exceptions. peacedove correct me if i am wrong but i am of the understanding that taking life is a big no no in the quoran? i wondered if it says anywhere that doing it in the name of god makes it right?

i am of the understanding that the Jewish people have an eye for an eye thing going on ( correct me if wrong i like to find out stuff) i wondered whether islam was the same. my moslim collegue told me that it was just wrong and that they wouldnt go to paradise - is that true?

jesus taught turn the other cheek of course. i find that very difficult in everyday life but try to practise understanding and tolerence.

Mistletoo · 28/12/2005 14:34

this looks very interesting but quite how you've all found time over Crimbo to get stuck in is quite beyond me!

now can anyone help me name my budgie?

Tortington · 28/12/2005 14:38

call it dave

Mistletoo · 28/12/2005 14:49

I have a ds called dave so it could get confusing but thanks for you input custy!

Tortington · 28/12/2005 14:51

your welcome

  • gary?
monkeytrousers · 28/12/2005 15:08

But MB, fundamentalists preach a fundamentalist doctrine, and quite patently Peacedove is not a fundamentalist of any sort. If he was, what would be the logic of him pretending otherwise? And surely even that would only matter if we were all idiots anyway.

Coppertop ? I have to agree with Peacedove on the Balfour Declaration.

And he said ?mumsy? ? quotation marks again!! This is what I mean about reactionary.

PD, me and you have talked to the limits of my own understanding on evolutionary science (not much I?d have to admit) we should leave the rest to scholars..

monkeytrousers · 28/12/2005 15:10

SW, we are none of us, in Kansas anymore..

ruty · 28/12/2005 15:13

the problem with all sacred texts in my opinion is that they were divinely inspired but written through the vessels of human beings, who are flawed. So, if and I mean if a sacred text says it is right to punish someone with death if they do such and such a thing, one apparently cannot argue against it without either being labelled as disrespectful to that person's faith, and being told that it is the word of God you are disagreeing with. Well, I approach the bible with an investigative conscience as i said before, and see it in its cultural and historical context. Just as well for me Christ himself never said anything that does not sit well with my conscience, though the Bible certainly does. Because it was written by people, even the best of whom have their own frailties and flaws.

monkeytrousers · 28/12/2005 15:14

..and with my grammer I couldn't teach the dog

ruty · 28/12/2005 15:15

oh yes sorry PD that you were quoting Normsockers with mumsy, didn't see that!

But MT I think PD did say he welcomes the increase in Islamic fundamentalism on the other orginal thread...

ruty · 28/12/2005 15:15

he also said that his idea of fundamentalism may be different to ours...

monkeytrousers · 28/12/2005 15:37

Which thread is that Rudy? do you have a link?

peacedove · 28/12/2005 15:45

Normsnockers thanks for clearing up th mumsy accusation.

StickCustardonYourSleighSanta I haven't heard about such collections from Muslim sources, but the US closed down several charities with that accusation. There have been collections for Jihad, but that is for where the Muslims were being ruthlessly persecuted, like in Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechynya, Palestine. That, too, has not been heard of lately.

Taking innocent life is akin to murdering the whole of humanity. Killing in the name of God is acceptible only in Jihad, and that has some very strict rules. If you ask me about them, I will have to search for them on the net.

"an eye for an eye" thing I think in the Old Testament. To answer your question, there are verses that allow for revenge, but at the same time we are told forgiving is better for us.

"jesus taught turn the other cheek of course. i find that very difficult in everyday life but try to practise understanding and tolerence."

What Jesus (pbuh) taught is saintly. Perhaps a way to correct the strict legalness of the Pharisees (?)

What you say is true, too. It is very difficult to turn the other cheek, and those who do practice it and can keep it up are indeed saints, and I am no saint, unfortunately.

"my moslim collegue told me that it was just wrong and that they wouldnt go to paradise - is that true?"

If you are referring to "suicide bombers" targetting innocent civilians, what they do is wrong, very wrong, a major sin. They won't go to
heaven for doing it, and will receive punishment, most probably in Hell. But for not ever going to heaven, I don't know. Assigning Hell or Heaven to people is not something I can issue an edict on.

ruty We believe that the Quran is not inspired, but the actual word of God, and has been preserved as such. However, what happens is that people apply the verses out of context, and that causes miscarriage of justice. The context includes the previous and following verses, the situation in which these verses were revealed, often clarified by what the prophet (saw) did or say.

In that sense, that we believe the Quran to be the Word of God, and that lawgiving to be ultimately from God, we are fundamentalists. But there have been different rulings for different circumstances.

On the "gay" thing, I don't not like calling it gay. I agree with stitch that it is not a natural thing. If, as its supporters say it is genetic, then as far as I know this genetic evidence has not been conclusive. If it were shown to be, there are many who are probably led into this by those already practicing it.

The Bible, and the Quran both talk of the destruction of Sodom, and the cause being sodomy. The description in the Quran has been confirmed by the archeological finds just within the shores of the Dead Sea. There is a site where I read this:

Harun Yahya

OP posts:
ruty · 28/12/2005 15:56

on the thread about civil liberties MT where i asked PD original question. No good at links, sorry.

PD - i can't comment on the Word of God in Islam, I do not know enough about Islam to comment. but in my faith, many Christians say that the bible is also the Word of God - but there are scholars who look at it in its cultural and historical context, in an analytical way, because God had to use human beings to write it through. I believe, obviously, that Christ spoke the Word of God, which is not the whole Bible, and Christ said that any taking of life is wrong, and we are not to judge others, God will.

BTW others cannot be led into homosexuality if they are not gay any more than you or I could be.

ruty · 28/12/2005 16:01

oh PD just the sodom and gomorrah thing you used as an example. There are eminent theological Scholars who believe that Sodom and Gomorrah as described in the Bible was a natural disaster, like the Tsunami, that was later explained by the religious people as an act of God. This is the kind of thing I mean about the Bible being studied in a historical and cultural context. i do not believe in a vengeful God, that was not the God that Christ talked about. He talked about a God of unconditional Love, of mercy, of Compassion. The God of Justice that Christ talked about was a God that sought Justice for was the poor, the disenfrancished, the homeless, the rejected.

moondog · 28/12/2005 16:07

Martianbishop's 1:46 pm post sums it all up very nicely indeed.

The refusal to allow the Koran to be interpreted in a way that allows for its historical context (as we,well most of us,do with the Bibles)ems to be at the root of what liberal thinkers find so diificult to stomach about much of Islam.

peacedove · 28/12/2005 16:16

ruty, Events have a physical method, that we wrongly ascribe as cause, and a spiritual cause, that is often obscured from us.

the history of the way the Quran has been preserved, and the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is there for all to see.

Yes, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them all) spoke the words God put in their mouths, but in the Diaspora the original Torah was lost (twice I believe). As also in the translations, and the explanations that the scholars and scribes put in. The New Testament also definitely has words of God, but you see it is a description by the disciples of what Jesus said, and well, as you said the scholars have analysed it enough.

I won't say more. Do not want to prosletyse.

OP posts:
moondog · 28/12/2005 16:19

Oh I'm sure you will PD!
And very soon too.....

tamba · 28/12/2005 16:31

I have been doing a bit of reading as i found this thread intresting and was wondering about this -

The common Moslem belief is that it is allowable to tell a falsehood on four occasions:

1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.

As to the third, we have a melancholy instance that Mahomet did not think it wrong to make false promises to his wives, in the matter of Mary his Egyptian maid.

Can you explain what that means please.

Also from the limited amount that I have read, women seem to get a much worse deal out of sharia law, for example, fare far worse in divorce, child custody and inheritance matters under Shariah law. For instance, a woman can only inherit half as much as a man can. If a divorced woman remarries, custody of the children from her previous marriage may revert to the children's father.

Also, I was reading about female circumsistion, is that still a common practice and It was also worrying to read that HufaaD is circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris and Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.

Like i say, i know nothing of islamic law but this thread has inspired me to read some about it. Although, I do not think you get a balanced view from reading alone as you do not know the mtives of the person who has written the articles IYSWIM so was hoping you could put right my (if they are) misconceptions of sharia law.

(some of this is cut and paste)

Mistletoo · 28/12/2005 16:36

thank goodness I'm a Christian and this lady is not for turning

Swipe left for the next trending thread