Laws of the land

Salim Syed

Islamic Perspective
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
UK Slough
Peace upon you,

In todays world where there is so much crimes, war and violence etc.. it is obvious that whatever govermental structures are in place world wide are not working. If a government was implemented based on Christian values, what laws would be changed or added to address today's social and economical problems ?

Is there a fundamental set of laws like in the old testament that could be applied in today's world ? if so what would be those laws ?
 
No doubt people will answer in a variety of ways; there is great diversity in Christianity on how much we should formulate certain religious laws versus encourage simple love (which yields ethical action), and of course in a nation like the U.S. we currently have a lot of conflict about how much the state should be based on any religion (since our founding fathers separated church and state- to protect the church and religious diversity).

I don't believe religious laws are the answer. I believe love is the answer. As Jesus said, all the laws can be boiled down into only two commandments: "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." As a Christian, with this mere sentence to guide us and the blessing of the Holy Spirit, if we devote ourselves to God we will internally know the path of best action. There is no need to put it into law, in my opinion, for any true believer will deeply desire to follow the path laid before them by God, and communicated to them through the Spirit. Furthermore, moral action isn't always about right and wrong, so strict laws can't get people to follow the path of best action at any given time. Jesus, when he healed on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath so they could eat, as well as in other teachings, demonstrated that what God cares about is one's heart and motivation. Sometimes what looks to others like a "wrong" action is right because of circumstances, and sometimes what seems "right" would be wrong. And then there are many issues on which the Bible is silent, because of when it was written- such as global warming, our responsibility to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and cultures, biodiversity, etc. This is why it is essential to me, as a Christian, to not only carefully study scripture but also be led by the Holy Spirit in my ethical decisions. God gave all people free will, and I firmly believe a nation's laws should not dictate to people all the details of their behavior- it should only have laws against actions that are harmful to others. Our puny human minds could never comprehend all that is God's will, nor the best action for every person in every situation, so I think it is best to encourage devotion and love for God and each other, which will lead to moral action without sacrificing people's individual freedoms and free choice to try to force everyone into what we think is moral action.

In terms of war... there is no law one could make that would halt war, because law is a national affair and war an international one. We have attempted to put regulations on war through international organizations of nations, but when it is perceived as necessary by individual nations to breach those agreements, they do so and there isn't a whole lot the rest of the world can do about it. This is another reason that I think the key is to teach people to love, rather than make laws.

Finally, there is the messy question of which laws? Whose laws? Who defines what the laws mean? Only some Jews follow all 613 mitzvot. I don't know any Christians that do. I guess we could go back to the Noahide laws, but even they are problematic. Who defines what idolatry (worship of false gods) means? And isn't it restricting people's freedom to find God on their own if we legislate that they can't practice any non-monotheist religion (not to mention a huge problem for universal human rights and the current laws of European and US nations, and goes against the US founding principles)? And most of those Noahide laws (outside of the restriction on religion ones), already have laws in countries. For example, practically all nations have laws against bloodshed and robbery- but it isn't slowing some people down. Making laws is one thing, but getting people to abide by them quite another.

Another reason I think the essential missing piece is figuring out how to educate all the world's children in loving-kindness, compassion, peace, and joy. Whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, neo-Pagan, indigenous, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. No binding laws for everyone, just learning to love. Since "God is love," or God is the Love from which all love stems, and of the "three that remain: faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love," we'd have a world of people much closer to moral action, coming not from external laws, but internal motivation.

Peace to you
 
Salim Syed said:
Peace upon you,

In todays world where there is so much crimes, war and violence etc.. it is obvious that whatever govermental structures are in place world wide are not working. If a government was implemented based on Christian values, what laws would be changed or added to address today's social and economical problems ?

Is there a fundamental set of laws like in the old testament that could be applied in today's world ? if so what would be those laws ?

Greetings Salim Syed, welcome to CR. :)

In one perspective there can be no such thing as a Christian government because all authority must be upheld by force, which is antagonistic to the Law of Love given to us by Jesus. [See The Kingdom of God Is Within Us by Leo Tolstoy] To my way of thinking, the power and uniqueness of Jesus' Revelation (apart from the new life conferred by His death and resurrection), is in His transcendence of the law. Essentially, love and be as He was, and the "law" (or perhaps the enforcement of the law) will no longer be required. However, knowing what weak creatures we are, while commanding that we make every attempt to rise to His perfection, at the same time we should follow the laws of the ten commandments, leading with our heart and spirit rather than crushing each other with the letter of the law.

So, a democratic and open government, balanced in power and transparent in its workings, giving religious and intellectual freedom to its people, creating and upholding laws based upon justice and reason, tempered by compassion, is perhaps the best we can do. The failings of such a government lie less with the system and more with the individuals who bend to the temptation of corruption and abuse of power, regardless of religion.

my 2 c
lunamoth
 
Salim Syed said:
Peace upon you,

In todays world where there is so much crimes, war and violence etc.. it is obvious that whatever govermental structures are in place world wide are not working. If a government was implemented based on Christian values, what laws would be changed or added to address today's social and economical problems ?

Is there a fundamental set of laws like in the old testament that could be applied in today's world ? if so what would be those laws ?
Hello Salim Syed,

The question you ask is interesting, and the replies you received even more so. You see, the United States Constitiution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are all based on Christian values. That is to say that the men who originated these documents were using Christian fundemental values to help design these documents which make up the foundation of the United States governmental system.

Now the documents have not changed one bit. Not one word has been added, removed, or modernized (with the exception of ammendments later, as it was determined they were needed for liberty, posterity and equality for all citizens). What has changed is the people who interpret these documents. Recently the most specific example is the judicial branch of the US Federal Republic, which decreed that the Constitution is a "living" Constitution, subject to change with the ebb and flow of today's society. Yet if you read carefully the Constitution you will find that the forefathers of this country saw this very pitfal, and put specific wording in the Constitution to deride this very kind of "relative" thinking. But that part of the Constitution is being conveniently ignored by judicial bodies who have begun to legislate law from the bench rather than interpret it, and judge based upon it.

Every school child in the US (at least up until 1970) understood these words by heart:

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America:

[size=+1]W[/size]hen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[size=+1]W[/size]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states...http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

THE PREAMBLE to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America...(followed by Articles 1 through 7) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

The Bill of Rights Prologue:

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent miconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of publice confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution...[size=-1]The Bill of Rights[/size]

I think you will find no finer a beginning for a form of just government "humanly possible", as the origins of the Republic of the United States of America. It is the most equalizing form of human government on Earth.

Unfortunately it is being undermined by a few power hungry godless people who wish to see themselves as the godhead of the nation instead of the Almighty.

If it continues...well we all know what happened to mighty "Pax Roma"...unless of course the citizens have enough of the antics of idiots in government postitions, and decide to invoke their right to disolve the existing government and start again...

v/r

Q
 
Lots of answers, and lots of text. From the answers I think I can come to the conclusion that from a Christian point of view religion is very much a personal issue. Bringing social, econonmic, family, criminal and other types of laws is left to those in power, whether they are atheists, pagans or any other faith.

Although i totally agree that what God wants is a pure heart devoid of any rebellion to divine commands and love for all his creatures, I cannot see how accepting man made laws above divine laws is acceptable.

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

I agree that God has given rights to Human beings. Out of the US laws which laws are directly taken from the Holy Bible ?

I was under the impression that the founding fathers were masons and thats why their symbol is on the back of the dollar bill. Also the symbol says in latin 'the news order of secularism', this does not sound like a new order based on Christianity. Although some of the ideals agree in principles to religious ideals.

Interest banking has put billions of people into debt, not just in 3rd world countries but also most individuals in the western world. Interest lending was forbidden in the bible and is a major sin in Islam and yet the whole world has through economics been forced into this major sin. Would Christians see this has an Un-Christian way of living ?

I understand and like the idea of 'love' rules over everything, but what happens when evil spreads and takes control. When Jesus (pease be upon him) took up the sword and entered the temple, to throw out the money changers (because on interest lending), was this not an example of repelling evil with force, in order to restore justice ?

Are divine laws not acceptable if they are there to repel evil and to maintain peace so that people may peacefully go back to what they were created for :

to worship God...

"practically all nations have laws against bloodshed and robbery- but it isn't slowing some people down. Making laws is one thing, but getting people to abide by them quite another"

Other countries like singapore and arab states have very low crime rates, there were many centuries in Muslims lands where shops full of 24 caret gold used to be left unattended , while people prayed. This was due to very strict punishment which deters people from turning to crime. Laws for crime in the US may be there, but if they are not strict enough to deter then people will break them, the problem is the people and the law (in my opinion).


Thanks for your time answering my questions, very interesting indeed...
 
Salim Syed said:
Other countries like singapore and arab states have very low crime rates, there were many centuries in Muslims lands where shops full of 24 caret gold used to be left unattended , while people prayed. This was due to very strict punishment which deters people from turning to crime. Laws for crime in the US may be there, but if they are not strict enough to deter then people will break them, the problem is the people and the law (in my opinion).
Without getting too political, it's worth mentioning that my understanding is that there is a lot of resentment within Islam towards so-called Islamic governments, precisely because they are seen to rule strictly in a primarily self-interested manner, rather than an Islamic one. And Saudi punishments don't seem to have deterred the strong undercurrent of disatisfaction and violent insurgency towards the governance of King Fahd.

It's also worth mentioning that Buddhist temples set in peasant areas have done remarkably well at preventing their gilded gold roofs being stripped down - without much apparent threat of immediate social punishment.

Returning more to the question of religion in relation to law - the point emphasised in the above posts (which are very much worth reading) emphasises the important of personal moral standards as of utmost importance - which I suspect has striking parallels in many ways.
 
Salim Syed said:
Lots of answers, and lots of text. From the answers I think I can come to the conclusion that from a Christian point of view religion is very much a personal issue. Bringing social, econonmic, family, criminal and other types of laws is left to those in power, whether they are atheists, pagans or any other faith....
True, but they must not interfere with the faith of others...to do so, is a quick way of losing one's seat in government.

Salim Syed said:
Although i totally agree that what God wants is a pure heart devoid of any rebellion to divine commands and love for all his creatures, I cannot see how accepting man made laws above divine laws is acceptable....
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"


Salim Syed said:
I agree that God has given rights to Human beings. Out of the US laws which laws are directly taken from the Holy Bible ?...
The base is the seven Noahidic laws, with the 10 commandments overlaying such.

Salim Syed said:
I was under the impression that the founding fathers were masons and thats why their symbol is on the back of the dollar bill. Also the symbol says in latin 'the news order of secularism', this does not sound like a new order based on Christianity. Although some of the ideals agree in principles to religious ideals....
Perhaps, perhaps not. But Masonic brotherhood is not a religion, or exclusive of any one religion. There is one supreme Creator, and the all seeing eye on the back of the dollar bill is the eye of the Creator of the Universe and all within. The term "Novus Ordo Seclorum", means no religion greater than another (New Secular Order). The back of the dollar bill also states "In God we Trust". Since God is not a religion, this makes perfect sense.

Salim Syed said:
Interest banking has put billions of people into debt, not just in 3rd world countries but also most individuals in the western world. Interest lending was forbidden in the bible and is a major sin in Islam and yet the whole world has through economics been forced into this major sin. Would Christians see this has an Un-Christian way of living ?...
That is the fault of the individual, for failure to adhere to the agreement between the lender and the lendee. The fault is that of the borrower. No one forced the borrower to borrow money. There are terms, and if agreed to by both parties, the terms are binding. It is a sin in Islam, yet Arabic countries toughting Islam borrow from non Islamic banks all the time. The sin is in charging interest between brothers, or family and friends...not businesses. I would never charge my brother interest for a loan, that is unconscionable! I would never "loan" to my parents. If I gave them money, it would be a grant, with no expectation of repayment. Nor would I charge interest to a friend, for a loan. The rule is to loan only what you can afford to lose, and be willing to forget about it.

Salim Syed said:
I understand and like the idea of 'love' rules over everything, but what happens when evil spreads and takes control. When Jesus (pease be upon him) took up the sword and entered the temple, to throw out the money changers (because on interest lending), was this not an example of repelling evil with force, in order to restore justice ?...
Jesus never took up the sword. He upset the entire Temple with his bare hands. He turned over thousand pound tables like they were made of balsa wood. He sent merchants (who were desecrating the Temple with their commerce), several feet into the air, and landing on their backsides, with his hands alone...no weapon.

Salim Syed said:
Are divine laws not acceptable if they are there to repel evil and to maintain peace so that people may peacefully go back to what they were created for :

to worship God......
Only if the Divine laws are the 7 Noahidic (for all the world), and the 10 Commandments (for the followers of Abram/Abraham). The two that Jesus gives, ecompasses all of the laws noted above.

"practically all nations have laws against bloodshed and robbery- but it isn't slowing some people down. Making laws is one thing, but getting people to abide by them quite another"

Salim Syed said:
Other countries like singapore and arab states have very low crime rates, there were many centuries in Muslims lands where shops full of 24 caret gold used to be left unattended , while people prayed. This was due to very strict punishment which deters people from turning to crime. Laws for crime in the US may be there, but if they are not strict enough to deter then people will break them, the problem is the people and the law (in my opinion)....
1790 US soldiers are dead, and all they wanted to do was secure the peace in an arab country. 1.2 million Iraqis are dead, 8 million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers are dead. 3000 US and other residents of the United States are dead, and the World Trade Center is no more. Hundreds of Saudi citizens are dead.

Where I live, the houses are left unlocked, keys are left in the cars, boats are left on the river, no locks required. Punishment is not strict, but the upbringing of our children is firm. All it takes is a look from a parent or a neighbor adult, and the kids (young) know they messed up. Our way works just as well. Of course we don't live in some huge city either...


Salim Syed said:
Thanks for your time answering my questions, very interesting indeed...
 
I'm not sure if criminal law falls completely into politics or more in religion. I think religions which do not seperate religion and law see criminal law as part of divine principle not politics. Christianity (I think) sees state laws as a political issue and not a religious issue - please correct me if wrong.. I am not very well versed in other faiths.

You are correct that there is a lot of resentment in Muslim lands against governments. Because they apply criminal laws to the masses but not the elite. Also the laws are not all based on religious laws. However not implementing laws correctly or in a 'pick what you want from the menu' fashion, does not necessarily mean the laws are not effective if put into practice properly.

As one person who kindly replied pointed out, there are ideals laid down in the US but they may not be put into practice properly by those in power. However if the ideal is good then it should not be thrown out (regardless of the peoples beliefs). It would be better to be ruled by a just and righteous non-Muslims than a tyrant Muslims.

I agree that 'personal moral standards' are the basis of all good societies. And any good laws applied to people with corrupt hearts will fail (until they see the good in them and accept freely). However in the case lets say interest lending, if the system is seen as just although it is unjust then the people will not know that in principle it is worng. Hence there can be no motivation to change the system.

Hence a whole society may follow unjust systems without realizing they are unjust (I am not implying any specific nation religion or group here), until a more just system is put foward. This is where (I feel) divine laws come in. Becuase God is not in need of anything or dependant upon anything, his laws do not serve any self interest, only the interest of his creatures. Man made laws (I think) always serve to protect the interest of one group over another due to fear of loss (of wealth, status etc..). God can not lose anything because everything belongs to Him...

I suppose the question comes down to who defines what is right and wrong ? is this something that God Almighty dictates to his creatures or do creatures decide this for their selves ? and if they do decide for their selves who decides the type of punishment for those who transgress the law ?

Thanks
 
The base is the seven Noahidic laws, with the 10 commandments overlaying such.

I am not aware of these laws do you have them in a short summary format?

I would never charge my brother interest for a loan, that is unconscionable!

Are all human beings not equal ? why does this only apply to one's family or friends ?

1790 US soldiers are dead, and all they wanted to do was secure the peace in an arab country. 1.2 million Iraqis are dead, 8 million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers are dead. 3000 US and other residents of the United States are dead, and the World Trade Center is no more. Hundreds of Saudi citizens are dead.

This will lead to a political debate, I am more interested in religious principles than politcally motivated wars.
 
Salim Syed said:
The base is the seven Noahidic laws, with the 10 commandments overlaying such.

I am not aware of these laws do you have them in a short summary format?

I would never charge my brother interest for a loan, that is unconscionable!

Are all human beings not equal ? why does this only apply to one's family or friends ?

1790 US soldiers are dead, and all they wanted to do was secure the peace in an arab country. 1.2 million Iraqis are dead, 8 million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers are dead. 3000 US and other residents of the United States are dead, and the World Trade Center is no more. Hundreds of Saudi citizens are dead.

This will lead to a political debate, I am more interested in religious principles than politcally motivated wars.
Certainly.

What are the Seven Laws?
1. It is forbidden to blaspheme the name of God.

2. It is forbidden to worship idols.

3. It is forbidden to murder a human being.

4. It is forbidden to steal or rob.

5. It is forbidden to commit sexual sins (such as adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality).

6. It is forbidden to eat a limb or any meat that was severed from a live animal.

7. It is obligatory to appoint judges and set up a court of law in order to pronounce just decisions to all mankind.

Where can one find these Laws?

The Noahide Covenant are found throughout the Bible. Please see Genesis 9; Christians, view Acts 15. These laws are binding on all humanity. Throughout Talmudic works, including Rabbi Moses Ben Nachman's Hilchos Melachim (chapter 8, verse 11) you will find these laws. See also, Sanhedrin 59.

Loans between family and friends is not the same between business deals. That is the difference. And it is reasonable. Businesses must make money inorder to thrive (let alone survive). Perhaps your concern is personal loans with businesses. If so, then I would agree that there is a problem there. However, if the one requesting the personal loan would think of his/her family unit as a small business, and conduct self as such...the deals with bigger businesses would not fail, or be so damning. Do you understand my point?

The loss of life was not meant as a political point...you stated that the laws in the middle east have reduced crime because of the strictness of the punishments. I point out that your logic is in error, because there are those who still refuse to adhere to the laws of the land, resulting in much pain...and suffering. That was all. No intent on making a political point one way or another.

v/r

Q
 
That is the fault of the individual, for failure to adhere to the agreement between the lender and the lendee. The fault is that of the borrower. No one forced the borrower to borrow money. There are terms, and if agreed to by both parties, the terms are binding. It is a sin in Islam, yet Arabic countries toughting Islam borrow from non Islamic banks all the time. The sin is in charging interest between brothers, or family and friends...not businesses. I would never charge my brother interest for a loan, that is unconscionable! I would never "loan" to my parents. If I gave them money, it would be a grant, with no expectation of repayment. Nor would I charge interest to a friend, for a loan. The rule is to loan only what you can afford to lose, and be willing to forget about it.

Is usury not forbidden in the Holy Bible ?

The principle is based on the fact that one party has surplus money. This money comes as a provision from God. Those who have not got enough money to survive need loans. Lets say Mr A has $10,000 spare cash and Mr B is hungry and need $10. Why should Mr A not just give away his excess wealth ? if he charges interest he becomes richer (making monet out of money) and Mr B becomes poorer, because he may have needed $10 but now will have to pay back lets say $50. So Mr A now has $10,050.

what happens here is making money from other's desperate plight. This is why it is forbidden. It also makes it an economic benefit to have people go into debt. This is one aim of engineered wars.

Wether lending to family or friends or business or between nations , the principle is wrong (by divine laws - not mans laws).

Those who are giving excess wealth are being tested by God as to weather they will give away their excess which does not belong to them (they are a means of the needy recieving their portion). Those with less wealth are being tested with patient and envy and jealousy.

Both parties have rewards - the rich for giving wealth to the needy and the poor for being patient and acepting God's will.

This is a religious principle taught by Prophets to guide people in this very important aspect of life that rules so many people lives...

Hope this clarifies my view....
 
It is obligatory to appoint judges and set up a court of law in order to pronounce just decisions to all mankind.

What religion would the judges be ?

A decision to all mankind - would you enforce your version of justice upon all other religions ?

Loans between family and friends is not the same between business deals. That is the difference. And it is reasonable. Businesses must make money inorder to thrive (let alone survive). Perhaps your concern is personal loans with businesses. If so, then I would agree that there is a problem there. However, if the one requesting the personal loan would think of his/her family unit as a small business, and conduct self as such...the deals with bigger businesses would not fail, or be so damning.
Do you understand my point?

Up until a few centuries did the Christian nations not forbid interet lending ?

I think lending money for business is OK if the lender is willing to share in the loss and profit. This will stop banks etc keeping people in debt, and they will only lend if they really think the person recieving the loan will benefit from the loan. I know people who work for a large banks in the UK and I know that banks look to keep people in debt as that is their life line.

The Islamic Empire (before the downfall) established an economic system with no interest for centuries. At one point they eradicated poverty completely from spain to china. This is historical fact not fiction.

Today Muslim states do interact with banks, but that is due to some corrupt leaders and the relentless struggle by banking dynasties to plummet every nation into debt. If they were free from external econonims and corrupt leaders and free to go back to Islamic economic principles I am sure they would. Give any human being the option of being out of debt , I am sure they would choose it.

Peace.
 
Salim Syed said:
That is the fault of the individual, for failure to adhere to the agreement between the lender and the lendee. The fault is that of the borrower. No one forced the borrower to borrow money. There are terms, and if agreed to by both parties, the terms are binding. It is a sin in Islam, yet Arabic countries toughting Islam borrow from non Islamic banks all the time. The sin is in charging interest between brothers, or family and friends...not businesses. I would never charge my brother interest for a loan, that is unconscionable! I would never "loan" to my parents. If I gave them money, it would be a grant, with no expectation of repayment. Nor would I charge interest to a friend, for a loan. The rule is to loan only what you can afford to lose, and be willing to forget about it.

Is usury not forbidden in the Holy Bible ?

The principle is based on the fact that one party has surplus money. This money comes as a provision from God. Those who have not got enough money to survive need loans. Lets say Mr A has $10,000 spare cash and Mr B is hungry and need $10. Why should Mr A not just give away his excess wealth ? if he charges interest he becomes richer (making monet out of money) and Mr B becomes poorer, because he may have needed $10 but now will have to pay back lets say $50. So Mr A now has $10,050.

what happens here is making money from other's desperate plight. This is why it is forbidden. It also makes it an economic benefit to have people go into debt. This is one aim of engineered wars.

Wether lending to family or friends or business or between nations , the principle is wrong (by divine laws - not mans laws).

Those who are giving excess wealth are being tested by God as to weather they will give away their excess which does not belong to them (they are a means of the needy recieving their portion). Those with less wealth are being tested with patient and envy and jealousy.

Both parties have rewards - the rich for giving wealth to the needy and the poor for being patient and acepting God's will.

This is a religious principle taught by Prophets to guide people in this very important aspect of life that rules so many people lives...

Hope this clarifies my view....
Again, we are on the same page here I think. Business to business, loan and interest is fine. Survivalship of a family should be the grace and graciousness of the family and the locals, doing their part to insure success of the ailing family (which does not mean the family in peril takes advantage of the good graces of the community).

No, business to business, I think loans with interest is reasonable (as long as the interest rate is reasonable). If you consider the three servants given a specific number of talents by the master, before he departed on sabatical, you might find that earning interest is well within keepings with God's plans for man. And he who buried his lone talent was chastised for squandering what was available to him (and the Lord).

The act of earning interest is not in failing with the word of God my friend. How we do so, and what our personal intent is, is the issue. Do I do for me? Or do I do for God? In if I do so for God...am I being reasonable? Am I hording the interest earned? Or am I using it in accordance with God's will?

Mohhamed understood the human heart. Jesus understands the human soul...

v/r

Q
 
Am I hording the interest earned? Or am I using it in accordance with God's will?

In Islam the end does not justify the means. Any good deed done using an unjust method is not accepted by God. So if you earned $1,000,000 by lending money on interest and gave it all in charity , this would not be accepted.

this is because someone or maybe 100,000 people are poorer becuase of the interest they had to pay.

I think loans with interest is reasonable

In Islam we do not decide what is reasonable, God decides that, whether we submit to His laws is a different matter. 'I think' is a statement from the ego. It implies that you have the right to define laws based on your feeling of what is just or unjust..... (I think).
 
Salim Syed said:
Mohhamed understood the human heart
Please expand on this...
What is there to explain? Mohhamed understood the human heart. He understood the foibles of man. (He was wise).

In Islam we do not decide what is reasonable, God decides that, whether we submit to His laws is a different matter. 'I think' is a statement from the ego. It implies that you have the right to define laws based on your feeling of what is just or unjust..... (I think).
In Other than Islam, we take the gifts and talents that God gave us and use them. We decide...and if we are quiet enough, we'll hear God tell us if we are mistaken.

Your concept of rationalization and reason is very foreign to me...so I digress.

v/r

Q
 
Back
Top