Social Justice and Islam

[England my lionheart]

OK, we need you to define religion here.
Because at the core of all divinely revealed religions is the ultimate in social justice. The golden rule - a central teaching in all these religions - is foundational to social justice. The fact that man has, and continues to use this rule only when it suits him, is the root of social injustice. Man preferring his own selfish desires above the welfare of the community - this is social injustice. Don't blame 'religion' for mans choices. Religion shows man the straight path. It has nothing to do with religion whether man chooses this path or another.

Religion to me is Man made,as books though they contain great stories and give an incite into ancient times,there are many such books but IMO they are not compatible with social justice today.

 

[Morpheus]

Religion to me is Man made,as books though they contain great stories and give an incite into ancient times,there are many such books but IMO they are not compatible with social justice today.

My perspective is a little different. Religion is God made (and therefore perfect), the church and its doctrine is man made, with all mans inherent imperfections (and therefore the source of our woes).
e.g. religion (or scripture) says "love thy neighbour". Man says "love thy neighbour unless he really ****** you off, then its OK hate the *******.
Which of the above is more likely to lead to injustice??

 

[England my lionheart]

My perspective is a little different. Religion is God made (and therefore perfect), the church and its doctrine is man made, with all mans inherent imperfections (and therefore the source of our woes).
e.g. religion (or scripture) says "love thy neighbour". Man says "love thy neighbour unless he really ****** you off, then its OK hate the *******.
Which of the above is more likely to lead to injustice??

Nothing wrong with your perspective its just not mine,i agree the Church,Mosque doctrine is Man made though,seems quite obvious to me

 

[Badran]

Last I heard, there were about a billion Muslims in the world. If even just 1% of those Muslims were evil folks actively hellbent on terrorism, there would be ten million active terrorists in the world. And if that were the case, how much worse would the world be? Obviously, very few Muslims -- much, much less than 1% -- are actively hellbent on terrorism. Painting all Muslims as evil based on the actions of a tiny fraction of Muslims make less sense logically than painting all Americans as pedophiles simply because 4% of Americans (or so I've heard) have pedophilic tendencies.

Exactly, there is not one logical reason for why to judge Muslims, their religion, or their scripture based on the tiny minority that do such evil. Neither on a bigger minority that do a lesser evil. That is simply picking the outcome you want before supposedly trying to judge things fairly.

If one is going to say "how is the Quran a good book or how is Islam a good religion when there is a good number of people who do this and that" he should ask the same question the other way around too. Which in my opinion, only leads to one conclusion, you can't judge a book this way, you gotta read it for yourself and judge it.

 

[Badran]

I don't think its possible to judge the book by todays standards, but as a standard for todays world thats when the problems start,thats why IMO there is no good working example of a Theocracy,the book can't be changed,its what it is and thats that.

Of course if people in their own countries want to live by the books standard cool Beans but where i live it conflicts with what we have achieved so far,we've still got some way to go but thats the good part about secularism,it can change.

Based on your understanding of those books, i understand why this is your conclusion. And your understanding is partially of course built on how people perceive those books, in this case the perception of Muslims of the Quran and how do they get the idea of social justice from it. From what you see, thats not appropriate for today and it will be a step or many steps backwards.

The book itself however, in the context of its supposed purpose, shouldn't be perceived the way it is most of the time and shouldn't result in the things you see neither. By this i mean, it neither promotes theocracy, or promote its followers to be static and not try to progress and advance their appliance of it with taking care of the changes that occurred in society since the time the book was revealed, or as in your opinion, written.

It can change, it builds foundations for social justice based on equality like i mentioned in an earlier post, it doesn't require religious men to hold authority over people, and since this is my perception, not all Muslim's, and you're not going to try to figure out what the book actually says, or at least think that its up for interpretation etc.... Then at least put in mind that some societies took that book as i do, and have accomplished a good community fit with today's standards, such as Malaysia or Turkey, to an extent of course, no country is perfect.

 

[kai]

Based on your understanding of those books, i understand why this is your conclusion. And your understanding is partially of course built on how people perceive those books, in this case the perception of Muslims of the Quran and how do they get the idea of social justice from it. From what you see, thats not appropriate for today and it will be a step or many steps backwards.

The book itself however, in the context of its supposed purpose, shouldn't be perceived the way it is most of the time and shouldn't result in the things you see neither. By this i mean, it neither promotes theocracy, or promote its followers to be static and not try to progress and advance their appliance of it with taking care of the changes that occurred in society since the time the book was revealed, or as in your opinion, written.

It can change, it builds foundations for social justice based on equality like i mentioned in an earlier post, it doesn't require religious men to hold authority over people, and since this is my perception, not all Muslim's, and you're not going to try to figure out what the book actually says, or at least think that its up for interpretation etc.... Then at least put in mind that some societies took that book as i do, and have accomplished a good community fit with today's standards, such as Malaysia or Turkey, to an extent of course, no country is perfect.

I think the problem most of us have is that the promotion of the book doesnt stack up with the realities on the ground if it is such a good foundation for social justice why the heck hasn't anyone built on that foundation, i mean in 1400 years the whole house should be built by now.

I am puzzled by your examples as Turkey has a secular tradition and Malaysia has system built on the British model.

 

[Badran]

I think the problem most of us have is that the promotion of the book doesnt stack up with the realities on the ground if it is such a good foundation for social justice why the heck hasn't anyone built on that foundation, i mean in 1400 years the whole house should be built by now.

It can be built and destroyed. I mean it has been accomplished before more than once, but it didn't last forever, which is understandable, especially due to the amount of wars back then. However today its not built of course.

Also, just in case, the structure built in those older examples won't be the same as the supposed good structure i would build today, as there are some differences. In other words its not a certain template that applies to all cases.

I am puzzled by your examples as Turkey has a secular tradition and Malaysia has system built on the British model.

Sorry about not clarifying better. Those countries may not be following the idea fully, however they got the part that counts, the essence of social justice.

Also, in Turkey's case and secularism, you should know that not all Muslims see secularism the way its portrayed here often, neither see it as evil at all. In fact, some of them think its a basic idea of justice that is merely common sense.

Thing is though about it, is that secularism like anything else is misunderstood by some of its supporters to be something that eliminates religion from the picture. Something that makes religion only for trivial purposes, or at least only in the privacy of your home, which is an extremely provoking idea to religious people (me included) and is also might scare them since it will eliminate some of the rights they enjoy right now.

The core principle of secularism, that no religion should have power or get any special treatment, in my opinion doesn't oppose the idea in Islam of a fair government. I know this is extremely difficult to understand if not appearing outright nonsense due to for example the fact that i sometimes use the word Islamic government, but i can explain more about that if you want me to.

 

[kai]

It can be built and destroyed. I mean it has been accomplished before more than once, but it didn't last forever, which is understandable, especially due to the amount of wars back then. However today its not built of course.

Also, just in case, the structure built in those older examples won't be the same as the supposed good structure i would build today, as there are some differences. In other words its not a certain template that applies to all cases.



Sorry about not clarifying better. Those countries may not be following the idea fully, however they got the part that counts, the essence of social justice.

Also, in Turkey's case and secularism, you should know that not all Muslims see secularism the way its portrayed here often, neither see it as evil at all. In fact, some of them think its a basic idea of justice that is merely common sense.

Thing is though about it, is that secularism like anything else is misunderstood by some of its supporters to be something that eliminates religion from the picture. Something that makes religion only for trivial purposes, or at least only in the privacy of your home, which is an extremely provoking idea to religious people (me included) and is also might scare them since it will eliminate some of the rights they enjoy right now.

The core principle of secularism, that no religion should have power or get any special treatment, in my opinion doesn't oppose the idea in Islam of a fair government. I know this is extremely difficult to understand if not appearing outright nonsense due to for example the fact that i sometimes use the word Islamic government, but i can explain more about that if you want me to.

Isnt social Justice becoming a focal point now in this day and age by all? arnt we all now recognizing the need for social justice, in terms of personal freedoms. trouble is those personal freedoms tend to clash with religious boundaries.

I think the greatest obstacle to overcome between religious folk and non religious folk is Homosexuality, correct me if i am wrong but there will never be an acceptance of Homosexuality within Islam will there?

 

[Badran]

Isnt social Justice becoming a focal point now in this day and age by all? arnt we all now recognizing the need for social justice, in terms of personal freedoms. trouble is those personal freedoms tend to clash with religious boundaries.

I agree. But thats only because some of the religious people think that way. However, there are others who personal freedom don't clash with their religion at all.

I think the greatest obstacle to overcome between religious folk and non religious folk is Homosexuality, correct me if i am wrong but there will never be an acceptance of Homosexuality within Islam will there?

I can't say what will happen in the future, but i know this. So far its pretty clear homosexual sex is not accepted in the Islamic view. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the legal right for homosexuals to do that should be tampered with.

If the legal issue is resolved then the rest doesn't matter. We think its wrong others think its right and that should be that.

 

[kai]

I agree. But thats only because some of the religious people think that way. However, there are others who personal freedom don't clash with their religion at all.


I can't say what will happen in the future, but i know this. So far its pretty clear homosexual sex is not accepted in the Islamic view. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the legal right for homosexuals to do that should be tampered with.

If the legal issue is resolved then the rest doesn't matter. We think its wrong others think its right and that should be that.

Thats all well and good and i admire the way you think but thats all OK as long as the Religious aspect of thought is not responsible for the basis of law.

 

[Badran]

Thats all well and good and i admire the way you think but thats all OK as long as the Religious aspect of thought is not responsible for the basis of law.

For something to be dealt with by the law, it needs to be demonstrated that it has an effect on the community that warrants such law.

I believe all Islamic law is as such. But my opinion of course isn't a standard, so basically i agree but In the same time, i believe my religion recognizes that just because something is supposedly wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I am however as you very well know not even close to be speaking for all Muslims in what i'm saying here. Other Muslims have different ideas about this whole thing, and they can explain what they think is social justice.

 

[kai]

For something to be dealt with by the law, it needs to be demonstrated that it has an effect on the community that warrants such law.

I believe all Islamic law is as such. But my opinion of course isn't a standard, so basically i agree but In the same time, i believe my religion recognizes that just because something is supposedly wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I am however as you very well know not even close to be speaking for all Muslims in what i'm saying here though. Other Muslims have different ideas about this whole thing, and they can explain what they think is social justice.

Ok thanks.

 

[Wombat]

I remember you posted this before,i read some of it,can't remember much to be honest but there is nothing there that promotes social justice in a modern world,.

Yea...hang on...Bucails examination of the Quran in the light of modern science was put forward in direct response to your proposition- “I don't think its possible to judge the book by todays standards”.

Clearly not the case.

If it is exclusively ‘social justice’ related material that is being sought then there is ample reference material...all valid and worthy of consideration/implementation “in a modern world”.

Dreamer: Islam and social Justice
An Introduction to Social Justice in Islam

I hold it to be one of the great myths of the age to believe that modern /industrialised/tech advanced and rich societies have it over others when it comes to social justice.
One only need look to examples like Hurricane Katrina(?)/New Orleans and compare the response to that with the 1999 floods in China. China put the US to shame and in many respects Islam (ancient and contemporary) puts the modern world to shame.

a book ,whether its 1st or 7th century,still contains social injustice with all the prejudices of that day and age.

Ok...put em up and let’s take a look at them.
But let's also be prepared to take a look at Islams contribution to social justice

 

[England my lionheart]

Based on your understanding of those books, i understand why this is your conclusion. And your understanding is partially of course built on how people perceive those books, in this case the perception of Muslims of the Quran and how do they get the idea of social justice from it. From what you see, thats not appropriate for today and it will be a step or many steps backwards.

I'm not singling the Qur'an out ,from my perspective it also applies the the Bible too,how people percieve those books and the societies they build around them does seem to be tacking a step backwards.

The book itself however, in the context of its supposed purpose, shouldn't be perceived the way it is most of the time and shouldn't result in the things you see neither. By this i mean, it neither promotes theocracy, or promote its followers to be static and not try to progress and advance their appliance of it with taking care of the changes that occurred in society since the time the book was revealed, or as in your opinion, written.

In the case of Muslims,there are as we know,some that do not allow for innovations,an example would be Salafi,there are of course others that do,same goes for some Christians too,thus progress for some isn't possible (well my idea of progress) whether they were revealed or not is for each individual to decide.

It can change, it builds foundations for social justice based on equality like i mentioned in an earlier post, it doesn't require religious men to hold authority over people, and since this is my perception, not all Muslim's, and you're not going to try to figure out what the book actually says, or at least think that its up for interpretation etc.... Then at least put in mind that some societies took that book as i do, and have accomplished a good community fit with today's standards, such as Malaysia or Turkey, to an extent of course, no country is perfect.

I agree,Turkey is arguably the best example but then it is secular,i also agree no country is perfect,as for interpretation Man is very good at taking the wrong one.

 

[Badran]

I'm not singling the Qur'an out ,from my perspective it also applies the the Bible too,how people percieve those books and the societies they build around them does seem to be tacking a step backwards.

In the case of Muslims,there are as we know,some that do not allow for innovations,an example would be Salafi,there are of course others that do,same goes for some Christians too,thus progress for some isn't possible (well my idea of progress) whether they were revealed or not is for each individual to decide.

I agree that in case of those people who do not allow for progress. But since others don't follow the same approach, also based on the same book, don't you agree its not fair to judge the book based on only one group?

I agree,Turkey is arguably the best example but then it is secular,i also agree no country is perfect

Like i said to kai Secularism, is not necessarily against Islam. It depends on what definition of secularism we're talking about. Also, Turkey is closer in its current form to Islamic social justice than any other supposed Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan etc.. They got the essence of the idea, as far as i can see of them.

as for interpretation Man is very good at taking the wrong one.

I agree.

 

[England my lionheart]

Quote,wombat:

Ok...put em up and let’s take a look at them.
But let's also be prepared to take a look at Islams contribution to social justice

I'm going to start with sexuality,Homosexuality has only been legal in the UK since 1967 and Scotland,Northern Ireland 1980/82 respectively,this would be impossible in either a Christian or Muslim Theocracy.

In the Qur'an a Homosexual is condemned to Hell,in the hadith to death,thrown from a high place prescribed by some,because this is Allahs word it will never change,in a society that builds its social justice around the Qur'an for example this can never change although there is a Gay Muslim movement.

Here is what some scholars say on the subject:

It clashes with the "natural" order in which God created human beings

If you believe in the Abrahmic God

It brings destruction of the family and the institutions of marriage

IMO the prejudice of in the scripture is more responsible for that

It leads people to ignore God's guidance in other areas of life

The fear here is obvious

In Islamic terminology, homosexuality is alternatively called al-fahsha' (an obscene act), shudhudh (abnormality), or 'amal qawm Lut (behavior of the People of Lut). Islam teaches that believers should neither participate in nor support homosexuality.

Social justice IMO should be inclusive,here it definately isn't,this as i said before cannot change whereas here modern society treats all people the same regardless of sexuality which is something adherents to Islam can not do.

Slavery is wrong,plain and simple,encouraging people to give it up in the Qur'an or Bible isn't enough,if you are an all powerful God and you condemn unbelievers to the fire the same could be done for Slavery,it wasn't and Slavery still exists.

 

[Badran]

In Islamic terminology, homosexuality is alternatively called al-fahsha' (an obscene act), shudhudh (abnormality), or 'amal qawm Lut (behavior of the People of Lut). Islam teaches that believers should neither participate in nor support homosexuality.

Social justice IMO should be inclusive,here it definately isn't,this as i said before cannot change whereas here modern society treats all people the same regardless of sexuality which is something adherents to Islam can not do.

So in other words i'm not a Muslim?

Slavery is wrong,plain and simple,encouraging people to give it up in the Qur'an or Bible isn't enough,if you are an all powerful God and you condemn unbelievers to the fire the same could be done for Slavery,it wasn't and Slavery still exists.

Slavery doesn't necessarily still exist because of that, but in any case, the Quran did establish that all people are equal, and did make an advancement in the status back then. And since we follow the Quran, we should do like it does, advance from the status we're in. Not go backwards. Slavery today is unacceptable, so we can't go back.

As for the method the Quran dealt with slavery with that could be for many reasons. The fact is it was a world accepted thing, entire societies were divided based on that manner. It could be argued that this was the best way to deal with such thing. But that is irrelevant, as the important point or concern, is that since slavery wasn't flat out condemned, some Muslims will have an excuse to keep doing it. But like i demonstrated, thats not the case, and in this part this is not my position alone, but most Muslim's.

 

[England my lionheart]

So in other words i'm not a Muslim?

I get your point

Slavery doesn't necessarily still exist because of that, but in any case, the Quran did establish that all people are equal, and did make an advancement in the status back then. And since we follow the Quran, we should do like it does, advance from the status we're in. Not go backwards. Slavery today is unacceptable, so we can't go back.

Agree

As for the method the Quran dealt with slavery with that could be for many reasons. The fact is it was a world accepted thing, entire societies were divided based on that manner. It could be argued that this was the best way to deal with such thing. But that is irrelevant, as the important point or concern, is that since slavery wasn't flat out condemned, some Muslims will have an excuse to keep doing it. But like i demonstrated, thats not the case, and in this part this is not my position alone, but most Muslim's.

Of course,i suspect most Muslims wouldn't even consider owning a Slave,i am though looking at whats actually said in the Qur'an and Bible,IE if you have a Slave He/She should be treated in a certain way,to me this sets a precedent,as long as you treat a Slave well its ok.

 

[Yerda]

I'd like to apologise for, and retract this:

Social justice is integral to humanism, in Islam there is autocracy and submission.

And this:

Why is it that a rather healthy number of Muslims consider democracy, civil rights, and free speech to be either irrelevant or unIslamic?

Was in a bit of strop and being a grumpy eejit. Those statements were rubbish, and more to the point I don't know anywhere near enough about Islam to justify claims like these. Sorry guys.

 

[Gharib]

It seems to me that social justice is integral to Islam. Is this how you read it?

sorry if my question sounds weird, but what do you mean with your question?
i don't know what 'integral' means i looked it up but no luck in understanding it.
i should spend more time with a dictionary.