| ok. Who defines the limits of freedom? surely absolute freedom is the view of an anarchist? The point of disagreement here is not that society needs laws, rather the disagreement is why should legislation be based on a devine text, as opposed to some suits who sit in parliament, or senate, and decide based on what of interest to them.
There is a distinction to be made here. If the topic of discussion is whether a state should invest in modern technology, and design a Super Concord, Hish speed communications via the internet, or a cure for AIDS & Cancer, and the peoples vote is needs both Islam and other political philosophies undertake this, i.e. Administrative poicies. If the discussion is whether peadaphelia should be legalised, or cannibalism, or incest...the we are definitely in disagreement.
If you look at man's needs 1400 years ago, and today, you will see that inherintly man has the same needs, the only things that have changed are the means. (i.e. the instincts and organic needs in man are the same, only the means by what he fufills them have changed)
Instincts in man are:
1. Survival Instinct: Man NEEDS to survive, We build a house, they built a house,
2. Procreational Instinct: Man NEEDS to Reproduce, We marry, they married
3. Religious Instinct: Man NEEDS to revere something, We revere somthing, they revered something too (the difference is in what is being revered, aside form the obvious, some revere money, some fame, some women, some football, others secularsim)
We communicated in the past, we communicate today, we travveled in the past we travel today, goods were transported in the past they are transported today. Point being, no one is claiming to go backwards in time, this is a naeieve comment for those who have not understood the topic of discussion.
Nabeel Saiyer
www.newcivilisation.com |