regardless of the question of Riba as far as i know he said that politics can't be separated from religion. what do you think that means?

also have you ever taken interest from your friend to whom you loaned some money? why?



http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publicati...ew/oct08/9.htm
In contemporary Pakistan it has become fashionable to argue whether Pakistan was intended by its founders (the leaders along with the masses who were led) to be a secular state or an Islamic one. This debate that lay dormant for decades has been revived at the behest of those who harbour a secular agenda either due to their personal proclivities or from those who are following directives from their masters residing in Western nations. If we reduce the debate to its binary opposites, we find the pseudo liberal who parades as liberal, but in the superficial element of his outlook is ostensibly secular (and materialist to the hilt) is on one side of the fence. Generally speaking, the latter is neither cognizant of the consequences of the secular experience of the West, nor is he concerned about the role of ethics and the deleterious effect of development on human society and ecology. On the other side of the fence we find a figure, known in the West by the name of ‘Islamist’[65]. The outlook of the Islamist is that of a bearded looking restive fellow, who, due to the lack of nuanced knowledge of his own tradition, appears exclusivist and reactionary in nature. But the Islamist gains respect from certain quarters of the society because of his recourse to the discourse of Islam. Save the exceptions of Iran and Saudi Arabia[66], secularists in the Muslim world are running their countries while the Islamists are mostly in opposition movements and contentious political parties, sometimes allowed and often banned by the states. The pushers for a secular Pakistan present the straw man of the Islamist as a horrific alternative to a secular state and want the public to jump on the secular bandwagon, realizing little the dangers of throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, the secularists have the national and international civil, military and media establishments to back them up. It is unfortunate that the debate has been framed in a way that evades the middle ground, which is neither represented by the secularist nor the fiery fundamentalist. But so is the nature of the times we live in. The middle ground in our opinion is within traditional Islam that transcends both, albeit its spirit remains antagonistic with the structures and ethos created by the modern world. Intellectually and spiritually the traditionalist proponents of this middle ground remains one of the few intellectual challengers of the modern worldview. Because of power in numbers and the nature of modern Muslim mass society, politically and militarily this challenge to modernity, through modernity itself, has become the prerogative of the fundamentalist.

At this point in history, whether an Islamic state brings about Islamization of people or the Islamicness of people gives birth to a state that is Islam conscious is redundant. Maududi and Khomeini would argue that a state must directly enforce an Islamic way of life in order to counter the anti-spiritual tendencies of the modern, secular, liberal, Western world. In this view, protecting the Muslim way of life through certain institutions and laws, the state must play an active role. The liberal/modern Muslims would argue otherwise. If both agree that the Islamicness of society is at stake, the debate becomes redundant because both are mutually constitutive. Both diagnoses presented above of erosion of Islamic ethics in public life may be valid. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that an Islamizing state shaping people’s socio-religious moorings and Islamically inspired people giving birth to an Islamic order, feed each other. In a country like Pakistan, from either of the two routes, the state in the end does become more or less Islamized.