The non Islamic system provides popular sovereignty at political level of the collective sphere of life. People are sovereign and can make any laws even if they clash with the divine laws. God has nothing to do with their collective life affairs. This is the first time in the history of mankind that man has taken out God from their collective lives. At economic level, the landmark of secular system is interest based economy in which a person owns everything. A person has free choice to spend/earn money the way he pleases.
Interest based economy necessarily creates “haves and have nots”. The one who is rich will remain permanently rich and the one who is poor will remain permanently poor. Interest has a sister known as insurance with the help of which it is pretended that Allah is prevented from making the people poor. Through speculation, the economy is in the hands of few people. When ever, they want, they can suck blood of the masses. Whereas, at social level “freedom” is the catch word of secularism, and total freedom ultimately leads to unwed mothers, single parents and high rate of divorces in the society.
At political level (no oppression)
• sovereignty (al-haakamiyya) belongs to Allah alone and for mankind is
khilafat (Yousuf : 40, Bani-Israel : 111, Al-Kahf : 26)
• no legislation will be done repugnant to the Quran and the Sunnah. (An-
Nisa : 59, Al Hujraat : 1)
no authoritarianism, mutual consultation. (As-Shura : 38)
• makes a clear distinction between muslims and non-muslims. (At-Tawbah
: 29)
• no theocracy. (At-Tawbah : 31)
At economic level (no exploitation)
• Allah owns everything (al-malik). (3:180, 63:7)
• Man is only a custodian. (57:7)
• controlled capitalism minus interest & gambling. (2:275, 2: 279, 5:91)
At social level (no discrimination)
• one creator (al-khaliq), everyone (by birth) is equal (4:1, 49:13)
• segregation of sexes. (24:31, 33:53, 33:59)
• unity of the human race - common origin of mankind from Adam and Eve,
hence total equality between black, white, Arab, non-Arab etc.
What do you think?
Last edited by syilla; 03-15-2007 at 04:28 AM.
25:36 And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the ignorant address them, they respond with words of peace.
Secularism and Capitalism are not synonomous, nor does one require the other. It suprises me that anyone would suggest a necesary link between these two ideologies, given how often communism and atheism are proclaimed to be tied together.
Secularism is nothing more than the belief in the separation of church and state. The church has no business running public affairs.
People are sovereign and can make any laws even if they clash with the divine laws. God has nothing to do with their collective life affairs. This is the first time in the history of mankind that man has taken out God from their collective lives.
This only makes any sense in the context of existing monotheistic believers. The principle reason for the rise in secularism is not to ignore God but the belief that there is no God, hence no divine laws; and that the idea of placing sovereignty in something that does not exist is nonsense. In practice, as God doesn't tend to put in an appearence personally, you are placing sovereignty in the hands of those who, or at least those who claim to, represent Him. Hardly the same thing... particularly if you have a look at the record of some who have made that claim.
At economic level, the landmark of secular system is interest based economy in which a person owns everything.
What Pygoscelis said. This is actually pretty funny considering the traditional socialist/secularist/atheist association and rapidly leads one to the conclusion the author has no idea what he is talking about. His purpose, of course, is to somehow blame the whole thing on usury, which is what distinguishes such societies from (theoretically) Islamic ones. Needless to say, exactly the same situation exists with regard to “haves and have nots” without usury, indeed I would argue rather more so.
Whereas, at social level “freedom” is the catch word of secularism, and total freedom ultimately leads to unwed mothers, single parents and high rate of divorces in the society
A totally different argument. "Total freedom" would acually lead to much worse than that, according to most political philosophers. No such thing is possible in any political society, and the author is just taking a pop at particular issues he believes restriction of individual freedom is desirable to prevent. Most in secular socieities believe that while some things do justify such restriction of personal freedom, those things do not.
Actually the article didn't create secularism as the topic...lol
I'm the one who is responsible on this topic
erm...did any of you actually read the whole article
I try my best not to defend the author but only to explain what islam teaches with this limit (or....teenie weenie ) knowledge that i have.
Actually he is merely talking about deen
Hence, Deen is a system of life in which human beings consciously
surrender themselves to the sovereignty of a higher authority, and live a life of total obedience under the system of that higher authority, in order to gain
rewards from it and to save themselves from its punishment.
When the term Deen is used for Islam, it obviously means a system of life
where Almighty Allah (SWT) is worshipped and obeyed, not just in the narrow
religious sense, but in a manner that includes all aspects of human life.
“And you see that the people enter Allâh's Deen (Islâm) in crowds”. (An-
Nasr : 2)
Actually i kinda agree with the author on the economic parts but i'm not really an economic expert.
yeah...maybe not "total freedom" but the results and statistics are getting higher.
25:36 And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the ignorant address them, they respond with words of peace.
It seems a pretty poorly-reasoned article to me. As well as the perfectly sensible objections raised by Trumble and Pygoscelis, there's the obvious contradiction of "along with religious guidance, Islam also provides us all the relevant instructions regarding our social, economic and political existence" being followed ten lines later by the claim that there is "no authoritarianism" under Islamic political rule. Surely that is rather the ultimate example of authoritarianism?
Well, the problem with Islam in politics is its far-reaching and intrusive nature. Every small detail of (private) life gets enforced by an Islamic state. So while political Islam might not be authoritarian, it surely is totalitarian.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Secularism
to the muslims
) knowledge that i have.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks