Re: Distinction between Medicine and Governance/Banking in Muslim societies
The modern rhetoric of the absolute comprehensiveness of Islam, vs the very real and historic constraints placed on government institutions, and governance practices shouldn’t be confused. Islamist is a vague term, and cover many different people with different perspectives, not just that of a subset of people from Hizb-ut-Tahrir…
Aside from this, I do agree that this ideological trend of thought that has the absolute completeness of Islam is the height of absurdity…and equally selective. Not to mention out right offensive (such rhetoric is often guilty of contorting Islamic texts, drastically altering meaning and intent).
I would point out that “Islamization” of medicine may well fall into the realm of Islamization of science…of which there are many vapid manuals. Islamization of programming? Accounting? Corporate Management?
Islamic medicine does not exist, as it implies something that was a result of primary Islamic texts. Medicine that developed in Islamic societies is a hodge podge of Indian, Chinese, and early European practices plus additional local innovations (e.g. in anatomy). In that sense, it’s hard to characterize any such practice as Islamic, so to speak. This isn’t to suggest there isn’t a hadith or so on health issues. But law and governance are different stories altogether.
We can at least show precedence for religious based influence form the earliest days of Islam and in the primary texts on such issues. Where rhetoric transcends reality, imho, is the claim that an actual, concrete, legal system was prescribed, rather than dictates that had to be, and were, incorporated into structures cobbled together and learned from other societies over a period of time.