IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abd/kauiea/v26y2013i1no9p169-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Method and Substance of Islamic Economics: Moving Where? منهج وموضوع الاقتصاد الإسلامي إلى أين المسير؟

Author

Listed:
  • Volker Nienhaus

    (Honorary Professor, University of Bochum (Germany), Visiting Professor, ICMA Centre,Henley Business School,University of Reading (UK), Adjunct Professor, INCEIF,Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).)

Abstract

Islamic economics started as a challenge and a fundamental critique of conventional economics, and the ambition of most Islamic economists of the first generation was the replacement of mainstream economics by a new paradigm based on or at least consistent with comprehensive Islamic worldview. It is questionable whether this goal has been achieved. A growing volume of literature with an ‘Islamic economics’ label follows the same quantitative approach and differs from mainstream only in so far as it deals with phenomena in Muslim countries, especially with aspects of Sharī‘ah-compliant banking and finance. Such studies of economic issues from an Islamic perspective are deeply rooted in conventional economics and lack the systemic or holistic dimension which is indispensable for the establishment of a new paradigm for a science of Islamic economics. Islamic economics as an autonomous discipline requires a systemic orientation, and it is conceptually inextricably linked with Islamic theology and law. However, the necessary intellectual interaction between economists and Sharī‘ah scholars is deficient. While Islamic economists had come forward with models of a financial system based on participatory modes of finance and widespread risk-sharing, many scholars of Islamic law were more concerned with the replication of conventional instruments for risk-free fixed-return transactions or with Sharī‘ah-compliant derivatives. Their efforts have moved Islamic finance closer to the conventional status quo and further away from an alternative system of financial intermediation. This did not contribute to the development of a new paradigm of Islamic economics, but this process is reversible. بدأ الاقتصاد الإسلامي على يد رواد الجيل الأول كتحد ونقد بديل للاقتصاد التقليدي. تبلور هذا الطرح في الدعوة إلى علم اقتصاد جديد قائم بشكل وثيق بالرؤية الإسلامية. بعد مضي هذه المدة غير اليسيرة على تلك الدعوة يطرح التساؤل الملح نفسه: هل تحقق ذلك الهدف؟ إن عدداً لا يستهان به من الأدبيات التي تحمل نعت الاقتصاد الإسلامي تطور ونما باستخدام ذات المسلك الكمي المتبع في الاقتصاد التقليدي، فلم يختلف معه إلا في ارتباط تلك الدراسات بالدول الإسلامية، وخاصة ما تعلق بمظاهر الصيرفة والتمويل المتوافق مع الشريعة. أظهرت هذه الدراسات أنها مرتبطة بشكل جذري بالاقتصاد التقليدي، مفتقدة؛ بل ومبتعدة عن المنهج المتناسق الذي يمثل أحد الدعائم الأساسية لقيام علم مستقل اسمه الاقتصاد الإسلامي. إن قيام علم اقتصاد إسلامي مستقل يتطلب اتباع منهج قائم على النظرة الشمولية المتناسقة التي تربط هذا الحقل المعرفي بالدين الإسلامي وشريعته؛ غير أن التفاعل المفترض بين الاقتصاديين المسلمين، وعلماء الشريعة أظهر عجزه في تحقيق هذا المبتغى؛ فالاقتصاديون المسلمون نظروا لنظام مالي قائم على صيغ المشاركة في المغانم والمغارم، في مقابل ذلك اشتغل علماء الشريعة باستنساخ أدوات مالية إسلامية شبيهة بأدوات التمويل التقليدي القائمة على العائد ذي الهامش الثابت أو المشتقات المتوافقة مع الشريعة، إن هذه المنهجية الأخيرة – التي سلكلها [أعضاء هيئات الرقابة الشرعية]- جعلت التمويل الإسلامي أقرب إلى مبادئ وأسس التمويل التقليدي منه إلى مبادئ وأسس الاقتصاد الإسلامي. إن هذه العملية لم تسهم في بروز علم اقتصاد إسلامي واضح القسمات كما دعا له الأوائل بل ساهم في تراجع تلك الدعوة وعودتها القهقري.

Suggested Citation

  • Volker Nienhaus, 2013. "Method and Substance of Islamic Economics: Moving Where? منهج وموضوع الاقتصاد الإسلامي إلى أين المسير؟," Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute., vol. 26(1), pages 169-202, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:abd:kauiea:v:26:y:2013:i:1:no:9:p:169-202
    DOI: 10.4197/Islec.26-1.9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://iei.kau.edu.sa/Files/121/Files/153876_IEI-VOL-26-1-09E-Volker.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4197/Islec.26-1.9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hasan, Zubair, 1998. "Book Review: “Teaching Economics in Islamic Perspective“ By M.N.Siddiqi," MPRA Paper 2978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Caplin, Andrew & Schotter, Andrew, 2008. "The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Handbook," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195328318.
    3. Backhouse,Roger E., 2010. "The Puzzle of Modern Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521825542.
    4. Backhouse,Roger E., 2010. "The Puzzle of Modern Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521532617.
    5. Mr. Juan Sole & Andreas Jobst, 2012. "Operative Principles of Islamic Derivatives: Towards a Coherent Theory," IMF Working Papers 2012/063, International Monetary Fund.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohd Mahyudi & Enizahura Abdul Aziz, 2018. "Method and Substance of Islamic Economics Revisited إعادة النظر في منهجية ومرتكزات الاقتصاد الإسلامي," Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute., vol. 31(2), pages 33-50, July.
    2. Abdul Azim Islahi, 2021. "How to Ensure Research Quality in Islamic Economics? كيف نضمن جودة البحث في الاقتصاد الإسلامي؟," Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute., vol. 34(2), pages 147-156, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:abd:kauiea:v:26:y:2013:i:1:p:169-202 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Karl Beyer & Stephan Puehringer, 2019. "Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics," ICAE Working Papers 94, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    3. Blair Fix, 2022. "Economic development and the death of the free market," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-46, April.
    4. Jun, Bogang & Kim, Tai-Yoo, 2015. "A neo-Schumpeterian perspective on the analytical macroeconomic framework: The expanded reproduction system," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 11-2015, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    5. Pedro Garcia Duarte, 2012. "Not Going Away? Microfoundations in the Making of a New Consensus in Macroeconomics," Chapters, in: Microfoundations Reconsidered, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Piero Bini, 2013. "The Italian Economists and the Crisis of the Nineteenseventies. The Rise and Fall of the "Conflict Paradigm"," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 73-101.
    7. Roger Backhouse & Beatrice Cherrier, 2014. "Becoming Applied: The Transformation of Economics after 1970," Discussion Papers 14-11, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    8. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2013. "Philosophie et science économiques : leur contribution respective aux discours politiques [Economic philosophy and economic science: their respective contributions to political discourse]," MPRA Paper 54598, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Fix, Blair, 2020. "Economic Development and the Death of the Free Market," SocArXiv g86am, Center for Open Science.
    10. Fabio Masini, 2013. "Facts, Theories, and Policies in the History of Economics. An Introductory Note," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 5-16.
    11. Abbott, Keith & Mackinnon, Bruce Hearn, 2019. "A Žižekian ideological critique of managerialism," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 133-138.
    12. Javdani, Moshen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," MPRA Paper 91958, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2012. "The rhetoric of failure: a hyper-dialog about method in economics and how to get things going," MPRA Paper 43276, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Yefimov, Vladumir, 2011. "Дискурсивный Анализ В Экономике: Пересмотр Методологии И Истории Экономической Науки. Часть 2 - Иная История И Современность [Discourse analysis in economics: methodology and history of economics r," MPRA Paper 49069, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Fix, Blair, 2020. "Economic Development and the Death of the Free Market," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2020/01, Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.
    16. Fix, Blair, 2021. "Economic Development and the Death of the Free Market," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar, pages 1-1.
    17. Pedro Garcia Duarte & Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2012. "Microfoundations Reconsidered," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14869.
    18. ELLMAN, Michael, 2012. "What Did the Study of Transition Economies Contribute to Mainstream Economics?," RRC Working Paper Series Special_issue_no.2, Russian Research Center, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Sheila C Dow, 2013. "Codes of Ethics for Economists: A Pluralist View," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 2(1), pages 1-2, April.
    20. Fredrik Hansen, 2013. "The efficient-markets hypothesis after the crisis: a methodological analysis of the evidence," Chapters, in: Mats Benner (ed.), Before and Beyond the Global Economic Crisis, chapter 3, pages 55-71, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Pinzur, David, 2021. "Infrastructure, ontology and meaning: the endogenous development of economic ideas," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110932, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abd:kauiea:v:26:y:2013:i:1:no:9:p:169-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: King Abdulaziz University, Islamic Economics Institute. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cikausa.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.