look we dont have to use one extreme to jutify another extreme, your argument keep goign back to the moronic overspending and crazy financial scheming and greed that created the mess.
the issue i have is that anytime there is a dicussion, people jump on the issue of a consumption and say its bad.
My point is very simple, no cnsumption means no production, no production means no jobs no businesses and that means no charity,
I want to think less materialistically, but last time a smile saved the life of a starving child was, well never.
I am 100 in agreement, overspending and highly leveraged lifestyle is an issue, howver I think that a lot of what our 'islamic scholars' talk about does not answer some simple questions.
I ask them about capital creation in such circumstances and they too run to the examples of extreme, instead of proving their case
Peace X2
These are also extremes. I never said no consumption ... consumerism is not defined by some consumption - it is defined as 'increasing consumption'
Also your simplified assessment of no jobs and no charity is flawed. On the face of it it seems you are right but when you do the detailed maths you will see that it does not increase charity by putting more money away into company growth. It surely does not increase charity by letting people save increasing amounts and again no charity is increased if the system promotes indulgence in the self rather than satisfaction in giving to others.
Perhaps we have to agree to disagree ... But I never said trade is bad I said consumerism is bad I also inferred that consumption is not equivalent to consumerism.
It is quite easy I am not pious to call myself a person who only obtains his needs, by far I am one who lives in luxury but I understand what is better for me.