Emergence of the tawhidi worldview:

(1)

173

Islamic Alternatives to the Secular Morality Embedded in Modern Economics:

Discussion of the Paper by Asad Zaman

Masudul Alam Choudhury

Adjunct Professor, Post-Graduate Program in Islamic Economics and Finance, Faculty of Economics, Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia

http://ief-trisakti.ac.id/

Received: 25 March 2021, Revised: 20 June 2021, Accepted: 22 June 2021

ABSTRACT. The objective of this discussion on the paper of Asad Zaman (2021) is to cast an overview as to what ought to be the learned outlook regarding Islamic economics within its scientific containment. In this way, it is surmised that the potentiality of Islamic economics, its scientific approach, and the broader socio- scientific field can be searched and advanced in comparative Western perspective.

By gradually establishing this enriched domain of advanced and conforming methodological approach, the future of Islamic economics in its ontological and scientific context can be discovered. This is indeed a momentous task of many together in the perspective of the collective world of learning.

KEYWORDS: Tawhid, Shari’ah, Islamic world-system, Islamic economics, epistemology.

JELCLASSIFICATION: JEL Z12 KAUJIECLASSIFICATION: W

(2)

1. Overview of Zaman’s Paper Asad Zaman’s paper (2021) is a nicely written erudite piece of many citations. Yet, it comprises only elementary ideas. It deals with superficiality rather than an informed methodological overview of science, economics, and social sciences in the comparative perspectives of Islam and the West. This kind of a piece on an important subject matter smacks of peripheral, comprising a vastly strewn pot of dos and don’ts to realize Islamic economics as the revolutionary science graduating out of the shift from the existing tenor of Islamic economics, and in detachment from the ‘secular’ worldview of science, economics, social sciences, and morality distancing religion in the eighteenth century.

The peripheral problem of casual writing otherwise is like missing the boat while praying for a safe boat journey on the shore. Zaman’s paper over- whelms in a non-substantive overview a sermonic prayer that he claims would be the Islamic way. This reviewed piece remains devoid of the essential methodological mooring of the Qur’ān and its bearing on the generality and particulars of ‘everything’ (Bar- row, 1991) of the world-system. The Qur’ān refers to this world-system as the ʿālamīn and its explanation spans ‘everything’ in the world-system as the signs of Allah (ãyāt-Allah). In the presence of such significant pointers, the Qur’ānic methodological worldview is raised and sustained. In view of the substantive Qur’ānic perspective, the reviewed piece has failed to be objective, substantive, and is devoid of any degree of rigor marking the nature, origin, structure, and continuity of the socio-scientific worldview by which the Qur’ān enriches intellectual knowledge of the world-system.

This is a problem of gross oblivion equally among Muslim scholars in general. The consequences on erudition and existential possibility are disparaging.

Firstly, such a lay approach found to prevail in the Islamic literature subdues the challenge among Mus- lims to search, delve, and discover the essentiality and rigor singularly and profoundly. Such a search and discovery indispensably rests on the message of the Qur’ān and its abiding, universal, and unique embodiment of ‘everything’ in the learning world of science and society. Contrarily, the absence of the challenge among Muslims to dwell deeply in the Qur’ānic phenomenon, to unravel the vista of the

socio-scientific origin of the Islamic worldview as conceptualization and its application has made Mus- lims simply as normative thinkers or as silent bor- rowers of occidental methodology and methods of empiricism (Nabi, 1983). The Muslim mind trying to inculcate the Islamic methodological worldview, lost understanding of the majestic ontological message of the Qur’ān. Muslims, thus, became unquestioning followers of Occidentalism. Their ignorance of the Islamic (Qur’ānic) worldview, bearing its complex though richness of the Message, failed to be searched and discovered in the holism of the Islamic nature of science, society, and the learning world-system.

The history of Muslims paints this disabling reality. Yet, Qur’ān is full of knowledge and forever. It cannot fade away in the face of the ever blossoming of the new world of ‘everything’ by which the Qur’ān excites and empowers the creative faculty. Marching into this vista of challenge of erudition, the Muslim mind must proceed within the evolutionary learning consciousness of the methodological worldview of the Qur’ān. In the Qur’ānic world as I see it, this methodological worldview explains the world-system by the dynamics of undying organic relationship of unity of knowledge arising from the monotheistic Oneness (tawḥīd) and its functioning in the bosom of

‘everything’. Such an over-arching methodological worldview pervasively invokes the inter-relations of Allah, Prophet, and the generality and particulars of the world-system in its pervasive continuity. There- by, the rigorously derived formalism from the ontology of tawḥīd as law explains the issues and problems of the world-system under study. Along this terrain of incessant inquiry, the conceptual, quantitative, and empirical inferences of the Islamic discursive mind and society are sustained.

There are specific properties of the rigorous model derived from tawḥīd as a universal and unique law within the foundational precept of unity of knowledge and its bearing totality of the learning world-system. To enumerate these properties, without details here, the emergent conscious world- system of unity of knowledge with its ontological origin in tawḥīd as law is characterized by the learning properties of interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning processes. All these in sequel are continuously sustained intra-system and inter-system.

(3)

These comprise the issues and problems under study in their specifics. They are represented by multi- variables as endogenous entities having the fullness of circular causation relations between them. The result is the attainment of degrees of wellbeing (maṣlaḥah). The wellbeing criterion exists in its conceptual and evaluated forms to enable institutional policy inferences and qualitative and quantitative analyses.

The second cause of the decadence among Mus- lims is due to the peripheral learning and its ignorance of the methodological depth of the Qur’ān. This is to miss out diverse areas of knowledge acquisition without any distinction required between secular and Qur’ānic categories. There is no need here for segregation between ‘secularism’ and the Qur’ānic en- lightenment. The sorting is automatic. Knowledge arising from the primal ontological origin of unity of knowledge embodying tawḥīd as explanatory law is luminous and clear (Qur’ān, 24:35). The progress of the Qur’ānic knowledge-centered worldview of Al- lah’s signs (ãyāt-Allah) of organic unity of knowledge and the world-system of science, society, and religion (ʿālamīn) cuts across and endows alto- gether a fresh outlook to the substantive meanings of noumena (normative) and phenomena (positive), secular and non-secular (Qur’ān, 2:177), nature and the realm of moral origin, and the Qur’ānic phenomenological meaning of embodied moral consciousness in artefacts of the world-system comprising mind and matter. The segregation of ‘secularism’ and the Qur’ān in respect of tawḥīd as the ontological law governing faith, science, and society dissipates away in the light of the Qur’ānic injunction: “And say:

Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish” (Qur’ān, 17:81).

Zaman’s piece has missed out all such essentiality by being a peripheral sermon with only a reference to some scientific and economic topics. Even so, where such marginal reference is given, no substantive groundwork is pointed out. A pointer in this direction of informed arguments of science and society would be welcome. There are many concerns on this point of discussion that remain strewn throughout the reviewed piece. It will be too lengthy to analyze all of them here. Only a few of these stated areas of con- cern are mentioned in reference to the reviewed piece. These are very briefly pointed out here.

2. Knowledge and Science

In Zaman’s piece the essential meaning of knowledge used in the philosophy of science and as it is instru- mental in developing the foundation of science in connection with religion has been misconstrued. The Qur’ān lays down the foundation of creation in its entirety on knowledge as the proclamation of the Oneness of Allah (tawḥīd). Tawḥīd as the law and precept of knowledge embodying ‘everything’ is further extended as the principle of unity of knowledge that embeds ‘everything’. We thereby have the continuously organic pairing nature of existence stated by the Qur’ān (36:36). Such pairing as inter-causal relations of unity of knowledge in tawḥīd as law and its contrary regarding the non-learning universe, are manifestly explained via the signs of Allah (ãyāt-Allah) in the fullness of the world-system (ʿālamīn). The Qur’ān (41:53-54, trans. A. Yusuf Ali, 1946) declares:

Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

Ah indeed! Are they in doubt concerning the Meet- ing with their Lord? Ah indeed! It is He that doth encompass all things!

In respect of unravelling the inner profound meanings of Qur’ānic verses to establish the all-encompassing Qur’ānic methodological worldview, there is also the dynamics of interrelating the realities of ḥaqq al- yaqīn (tawḥīd as ontological law); ʿilm al-yaqīn (the knowledge of tawḥīd as the true reality); and ʿayn al- yaqīn (the unraveling of tawḥīd as law to explain the conceptual and empirical meanings surrounding unity of knowledge). Indeed, the place of secularism in religion dissolves in the above-mentioned order and scheme of religion, science, and the universe. In the words of Albert Einstein writing to his friend Neils Bohr at Princeton University: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” (Ein- stein, 1940, p. 605).

The embedding of knowledge of the primal ontological oneness in its extended explanation of organic pairing of the universe of ‘everything’, is the profound seat of knowledge that enables scientific reality and interpretation to embody ‘everything’. It is this meaning of knowledge by its basis in tawḥīd as law

(4)

that becomes the ontological foundation of Islamic (Qur’ānic) methodological worldview. It is the precept illuminating in its power to conceptualize, for- malize, quantify, and sustain creative evolutionary learning in the midst of social interaction and integration at large. The emergent methodological world view then becomes universal and unique in respect of the most irreducible ontological reality of tawḥīd as law. The tawḥīdī ontological law is thereafter trans- mitted to the creation of explanatory forms in generality and details.

Such an over-encompassing meaning of knowledge arising from the precept of unity of knowledge in tawḥīd as law in terms of its pairing relationship explains and analyzes all subsequent meanings of the issues and problems under study (Masud, 1993). We can address a few of such issues and problems that Zaman wished to examine. Yet, he chose to address the Islamic worldview from the ecclesiastic point of view rather than with an argumentative approach.

3. The Nature of the Ontological Origin of Morality and Ethicality

In reference to my previous remark, the substantive meaning, and nature of morality must be derived from the Qur’ān in terms of tawḥīd as law of unity of knowledge. In this regard, morality and ethics as coterminous attributes in the Islamic purview is not simply a behavioral attitude and abidance with an exogenously provided text for enacting. In fact, in so treating these human elements in the development of the theories of science and society, the Western scholarship went wrong by creating a moral dichotomy. For example, in the understanding of the moral imperative by Immanuel Kant, he saw the mind- matter problem to be partitioned between the world of essence, that is the realm of a priori (noumena) this being the pure reason on the one side, and the world of sensible forms, this being a posteriori (phenomena) and practical reason on the other side. The a priori reasoning can at best be imposed on the a pos- teriori. It cannot be assimilated as an endogenous reasoning process and thus become the precept of unity of knowledge between a priori and a posteriori.

To the primal world belongs Kant’s moral imperative.

To the domain of practical reason belongs mere ontic forms. Therefore, the moral imperative, and thereby, the moral law, although deeply implicated in Kant,

could not be mapped into the world-system of practical reason at free will due to the partition caused by the problem of synthesis in science and society at large (Friedrich, 1949). This kind of partitioning into three compartments of God-mind-matter dichotomy, namely the moral imperative, pure reason, and practical reason causes the intervening problem of synthe- sis between these dichotomies (Carnap, 1966).

Western thought in respect of science and society;

normative and positive (a priori – a posteriori), mar- ket and institution; self and other in relation to the segregated domains of religion, science, individual, and society has been thoroughly driven by reason segmented between a priori and a posteriori dichotomy. It is therefore incorrect to say Occidentalism was differentiated between the knowledge of natural science and social science. Rather, the dysfunction caused by the disabling dichotomy of knowledge and reasoning was the result and response of avoidance of the ontology of unity of knowledge. Methodological individualism thereby arose as the determining mark of Western philosophy in its entirety (Russell, 1990).

Thereby, morality and ethics could not be induced as endogenous, that is organically interlinked forces of inter-causality between diverse entities. These organ- isms essentially encompass the realms of God’s law, man, the inter-causal universe, and then remains so divided in continuity (al-Badawi, 2010).

Knowledge according to the Qur’ān is ontologi- cally premised on, derived from, and gives rise to the moral and ethical meaning in terms of unity of knowledge. This is primarily characterized by the unity between a priori and a posteriori. The same principle governs universally and uniquely in ‘everything’ despite the diversity of issues and problems under socio-scientific investigation. The universe and its soul-mind-matter continuous interrelationship is thus undeniably premised on the pervasively complementary (participatory) and symbiotic world- system of diverse ontic forms (Sherover, 1971).

Knowledge and its derivation from the substantive foundation of tawḥīdī law of monotheistic Oneness and its worldly explanation in terms of endogenous inter-causal organic pairing, is therefore, quite different from a physicalist meaning. The latter connotation of knowledge as artefact is otherwise presented in Za- man’s paper.

(5)

4. Knowledge and the Tawḥīdī Ontology of Unity of Knowledge

Consequently, when the precept of unity of knowledge, say denoted by ‘’ premised on ḥaqq, meaning the true reality, say ‘’, thereby knowledge in terms of belief (faith), ‘()’, embeds the artefactu- al universe of symbolism and forms, X(()) (Schu- on, 1976). This totality is symbolized as {knowledge,

(), space, X(()), time, t(())}-dimensions. Be- cause ‘’ is incommensurate, we therefore, suppress its appearance in this dimensional symbol. Yet its substantive meaning underlying the ontological tawḥīdī law of unity of knowledge and the world- system remains indelible. In respect of such knowledge induction in ‘everything’, the Qur’ān declares: “It is Allah Who has created seven heavens, and earths as many...” (Qur’ān, 65:12). Thus, science, society, creation, and the God-man-creation systemi- cally continuous interrelations are explained in re- gards to the multi-dimensional knowledge-induced category. This kind of tawḥīdī deduction from the Qur’ān is contrary to the space-time structure of science and society that is viewed simply in a posteriori terms, devoid of the immersed unity between a priori and a posteriori realms of unified reasoning according to the organically paired worldview of the Qur’ān (13:3). Besides, the evolutionary learning universe in the midst of interaction and integration in the dimensional category is referred to in the Qur’ān as khalqin-jadīd (new creation). In this context, the Qur’ān declares, “Say: Travel in the land and see how (Allah) originated creation, and then Allah will bring forth (resurrect) the creation of the Hereafter (i.e., resurrection after death). Verily, Allah is Able to do all things” (Qur’ān, 29:20). Indeed, the participatory implication of unity of knowledge underlying the pairing universe stands out significantly as the explanatory design of the Qur’ānic learning universe.

5. Dynamic Preferences in Economics and Society The topic of rational preference formation, economic rationality, objective economic criterion, and human attitude and decision-making that Zaman’s paper has addressed, though on passing rather than substantive- ly, can now be shown to be so much differently treated in the context of unity of knowledge derived from

the systemic organic meaning of tawḥīd as the Qur’ānic law. Consequent to the resulting implication of unity of knowledge derived from tawḥīd as law, it can then be proved how the entire edifice of conventional economic theory collapses without redemption.

Let us briefly survey these points, which if correctly poised with the ontological meaning of knowledge in the Qur’ān, puts forth the consequences of depleting all of the conventional world-system of mind and matter. This is true of conventional economics, society and science.

The Qur’ānic ontological premise of unity of knowledge in the knowledge, space, and time dimensions applied to dynamic preference formation is the inevitable result of the evolutionary learning universe of unity of knowledge. Now if dynamic preferences and not the conventional treatment of mainstream economics of knowledge as artefact and of preference as datum are annulled in the derived tawḥīdī model, that is because the tawḥīdī law explains the state of static decision-making and its preferences as a special case – of ‘de-learning’. The implications then, are that the marginalist doctrine becomes un- tenable along the evolutionary learning design of formalism and empirical/quantitative applications, except in the ‘de-learning’ case. Thereby, the derivation of the transitivity axiom of choice, the pre- ordered preference leading to optimal choices, and the associated relative prices of goods and services along the optimal utility and indifference surfaces, and along the optimal production function and growth models, all remain null and void. Thereby, welfare surfaces, optimization of utility, profits, welfare, and all the second and n^th order conditions of optimal-solving of economic equations (e.g., by par- tial differential calculus) become illogical by the consequences of analysis. This result is obtained analyti- cally by the force of logical formalism arising from the tawḥīdī methodological worldview. Zaman’s piece ought to have established the critically analytical basis of his rejection of conventional economics of preferences, economic axioms, and optimality assumption of ‘objective functions’ of economics and science from the Islamic argumentative viewpoint.

(6)

There is no scope in the tawḥīdī model to treat ethics as externality to enforce moral behavior and learning corrections for the wellbeing as the common good. Thus, by the logical formalism and rigorous analysis of the derived model from tawḥīdī ontological basis, we now find that the central assumption of economic theory, namely, optimal allocation of resources under scarcity, cannot be tenable in the face of system perturbations caused by the continuous impact of interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning in sustainability across knowledge, space, and time dimensions. The conventional objective criterion of optimality and the associated relative prices and collective preferences of choices as for institutions and communities, cannot exist in such a continuously learning world-system of participative diversity. These matters remain absent in Zaman’s explanation of conventional economic emptiness vis- à-vis Islam.

The system of analysis derived from the generic model of unity of knowledge based on the primal ontology of the tawḥīdī methodological worldview attains the logical consequences. Moral argumentation revolving around the Qur’ānic unified world- system of complementarities, participation, and sym- biosis follow as part and parcel of the precept of unity of knowledge and its embedding in the world-system.

The static term used in Zaman’s paper for such a resolution of facts is ‘cooperation’. The more mean- ingful and powerful concepts surround the other derived results of unity of knowledge and its analytical impact entities of the world-system. In the natural sciences, the use of mathematics, which empowers the philosophy of science, also explains the richness, although complexity and non-linearity, of the dynamics of knowledge embedded artefacts in the entirety of knowledge, space, and time dimensions. The evolutionary learning of the symbiotic nature of organic participation and complementarities thereby replaces the static meaning of ‘cooperation’. Indeed, the No- belist in theoretical physics, Erwin Schrodinger re- marked that, fundamental particles of matter are indeed most politicized entities. For such viewpoints of Schrodinger see Schrodinger (1974),

6. Islamic Financing Instruments, Takāful and Waqf, in the Precept of Unity of Knowledge Along the same lines of argumentation as above concerning the primal ontology of unity of knowledge, in lieu of the widest implications of tawḥīd as law of monotheism, there are the two examples that Za- man’s paper addresses. These are takāful and waqf as morally requisite financial implements of the Islamic society. The question on the meaning and nature of morality is once more invoked here in respect of the tawḥīdī methodological worldview of unity of knowledge and the generality and specifics of the issues and problems of the world-system under investigation. The undefined premise of the foundation of morality and ethics in the reviewed paper leaves this to a posteriori realm of humanistic goodness. The automatic continuity of morality and ethics premised most diligently in the Qur’ānic ontological premise of unity of knowledge replacing the a priori and a pos- teriori divide, remains unknown in the Islamic literature. This is also the limitation in Zaman’s paper in respect of its failure to point out the automaticity, that is endogenous embedding of morality and ethics in the organic relational nature of unity of knowledge in the tawḥīdī derived methodological worldview. In this regard the Qur’ān declares regarding the perva- siveness of endogenous morality and ethics of tawḥīd: “To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decrees a matter, He says to it: “Be”, and it is” (Qur’ān, 2:117).

On the topic of takāful, the existing Islamic clam- or centers on the externality of the wellbeing effect generated by a perfectly reformed moral society. The question remains, arising from the methodological orientation of the derived tawḥīdī model of unity of knowledge, as to the organized business and community needs regarding intertemporal rate setting along which organization is established. This facet of the Islamic economy is necessary in order to establish an organized approach to rate determination (premiums) in the intertemporal valuation of risk and return. The sheer dependence on the goodwill of saintly Islamic well-wishers belies the role of organized institutions and the role of science in such valuation to establish

(7)

takāful as a social business. The same is true regarding the investments of insurance premiums as social capital existing in perpetuity. Such organized framework of valuation can be derived from the ontological framework of the derived tawḥīdī model. On such organizational issues the Qur’ān (16:4-20) provides moral guidance on the Islamic functioning of institutions. Indeed, the chapter of the Qur’an entitled Nahl (The Bee) is full of instructions on the directions to mankind towards the underlying precept of unity of knowledge (Tawhid) in detailed matters of existence.

On the topic of waqf as perpetual charity, Za- man’s paper pointed out that there is a need for inter- actively integrating productivity to generate continuous sustainability of waqf. The attributes of perpetual charity and productivity are seen as participatory, complementary, and symbiotic nature of inter-causal organically pairing entities manifesting the tawḥīdī law of unity of knowledge. Such a property of waqf legitimates its participatory complementarities with life-sustaining economic and social sectors. The derived tawḥīdī methodology then formulates the soci- oeconomic development planning in most scientific terms with policy implications to attain the wellbeing for the common good. While Zaman correctly points out the multi-facets of moral benefits that waqf can endow to the community, yet it is conceptually doubtful whether this objective can be achieved by simply depending upon a morally transformed human society. The Qur’ān warns against the human frailty that causes departure from the righteous path. Contra- rily thereby, the learned potentiality of waqf can be gained by the widening scale of systemic unity that is

cast by the tawḥīdī ontology of organic unity of knowledge in the wellbeing objective criterion. The underlying endogenous learning process of widening interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning regenerates along the intertemporal path of moral sustainability in and across the world-system.

In Zaman’s paper, takāful and waqf are treated as independent Islamic financing instruments. This in- ference flows from the author’s silence in examining these and similarly all Islamic financing instruments, resources, and real economy activities as being inter- dependent. Yet this missing point is a great scholarly remiss in the study of the conceptual and empirical (normative and positive) understanding of the ontological premise of unity of knowledge arising from the tawḥīdī law and governing the methodological worldview.

7. The Participatory Property of Islamic Financing Instruments According to the Tawḥīdī

Ontology of Unity of Knowledge

We now briefly explain how this latter case of generalized interrelations in unity of knowledge can be actualized in the morally/ethically inclusive tawḥīdī worldview of Islamic finance and the real economy (Table 1). The matter pointed out here is on the need for a subtle scientific way of explaining the functioning of the Islamic economic and financial systems for the wellbeing of economy and society. Such kinds of contents would have been useful if included in Za- man’s paper, even if the explanation was cast correctly in common language by the author.

Table (1) Islamic Financing in an Input-Output Table of Organic Interrelations under Unity of Knowledge Embedding the Financing Instruments: Exemplifying by Waqf, Takāful and Other

Waqf (W)

Takāful (T)

Other (O)

Waqf Takāful Other Final Demand Waqf() WW() WT() WO() aww() awt() awo() W()

Takāful() TW() TT() TO() = atw() att() ato() T() (1) Other() OW() OT() OO() aow() aot() aoo() O()

Source: Prepared by author.

(8)

Re-write the matrix expression (1) as follows in matrix notations,

A() = a()*Y() (2)

In reference to the tawḥīdī methodological model we write (details not shown):

Y() = a()^-1*A(() > 0;  a() > 0; a()^-1 > 0,

A()> 0 (3)

In evolutionary learning form we have,

dY()/d > 0; therefore, a()^-1*dA()/d + A()*da()^-1/d > 0 (4)

 positive definite matrixes (Henderson & Quandt, 1958) abide under the impact of interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning both in the form of expression (1) and expression (2). Table 1 can be made to furthermore show that the dynamic input- output coefficients in expressions (1) and (2) and the coefficients of the empirical derivation of the tawḥīdī model under the precept of unity of knowledge are positive functions of each other. They play a significant role in institutional guidance and policy formula- tion towards attaining higher levels of wellbeing caused by organic pairing between entities represented by multi-variables. Such an evaluative impact on wellbeing criterion implies higher levels of participative dynamics that can be estimated and simulated.

Indeed, there is much to be learnt for advancing new frontiers of knowledge in Islamic economics as a revolutionary scientific and social science worldview that Zaman’s paper has either overlooked or ignored.

This weakening feature of the paper is proved by the author’s exclusive use of his own writings at the ex- clusion of profoundly many others. By this same critical observation on the paper, it needs to be em- phasized that the development of Islamic economics necessitates closest knowledge derivation and resulting formalism in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah and the discursive scholarly community that follows.

Erudite pursuit of learning, search, and discovery must, therefore, be opened up to the full blossom of critical discourse at the highest echelons of comparative Qur’ānic intellectualism. This is a noble task upon which the Islamic structure of scientific revolution rests in full reference to the Qur’ān and Sunnah

and learned comparative discourse. This intellectual feat cannot be achieved by adaptation of the Qur’ānic methodological worldview to conventional doctri- naire. The noble task cannot be achieved by shirking off the mighty rigor of Qur’ānic worldview with only casual scholarship of the Qur’ān and lay erudition of conventional developments in the widening fields.

Indeed, Zaman’s paper has pointed this out. Yet there is much greater degree of completion required even at this rudimentary level of presentation.

8. Quo Vadis:? Whither are you Drifting Islamic Economics Without the Tawḥīdī Anchor?

Figure 1 summarizes the foundational and generalized nature of the derived model of unity of knowledge as the ontological basis of the monotheistic (tawḥīdī) worldview in ‘everything’. Being a derived model, the ensuing concepts and quantitative applications with the property of continuity in sus- tainable knowledge, space, and time dimensions remain to be a theoretical construct. It is, therefore, subject to all the criticizability and revisions that model construction lends itself to (Popper, 1963;

Boland, 1989). Thereby, properties of endless discourse and enriching possibilities imbue this tawḥīdī derived model and its methodological worldview under the ontological precept of unity of knowledge.

The theoretical derivation and its rich construction in the generality and details of the generalized derived tawḥīdī model over expanding systems and multi-variables comprising the intra-systemic and inter-systemic relations of organic forms in unity of knowledge is profuse in conception and quantitative applications. The authentic foundations are derived essentially from the Qur’ān, Sunnah, and critical comparative intellectual discourse. This derived tawḥīdī model thus establishes the most authentic genre for Islamic economics presently existing in its completeness within the Qur’ānic philosophy of science and its extensive applications. This generalized tawḥīdī model thus becomes a most outstanding sci- entific research program (SRP) for the development of Islamic socio-scientific thought over the course of intellectual history. Yet, the derived model remains amenable for critical study by the learning world at large.

(9)

tawḥīd as

Emergence of the tawhidi worldview:

Law of Unity Phenomenological Evolutionary learning processes

Of Knowledge:

tawḥīdī recalling and

Primal Ontology Epistemology Formalism & intertemporal

 continuity

construction evolution in

of World-System knowledge

, space, time dimensions



 

(,S)   {*) {}{X()} objective criterion

 {,X(),t()}Eval.W(X(),t())

[conceptual wellbeing, maslaha]



Inter-variables circular causation relations (Qur’ānic pairing) x

i

() = f

i

(x

j

,t)[], meaning ‘’ induces all variables in bracket (..)

 = F(X,t)[] [ordinal evaluation with algorithmic ranks]

Or by estimating in terms of the ranked values of {,

i

} corre- sponding to the variables

(ij)=1,2,…n; and intertemporally over knowledge, space, time.

The special form of wellbeing in respect of its systemic (s=1,2..m)

participative nature:

Eval.

{}



s=1m

W

s

(X,t)[]

subject to, inter-systemic circular causation relations:

X

s,i

() = f

si

(X

s,j

,t)[] and the approximations of W(..) in terms of {,

i

}.

Figure (1) Tawḥīdī Methodological Worldview in Unity of Knowledge as Primal Ontology

9. Conclusion

In the light of the high pedestal of revolutionary challenge and structure of the SRP of Islamic economics in its most comprehensive emanation within philosophy of science as derived from the Qur’ān,

the paper by Zaman under discussion falls short in this requirement. Some of these shortcomings are summarized here in reference to the text of this discussion of the paper of Zaman.

(10)

Even in the face of copiously pitting Islamic economics and scientific pursuit against the Western disciplines, Zaman’s paper is a non-starter by its failing to be meaningfully argumentative in structur- ing the Islamic methodological overview. As it was pointed out in the text of this critical review, Za- man’s banal overview does not pave the way to new vistas of advancement for the guidance of a substantive future birth of Islamic scholarship. The presentation remains simply a casual sermonic piece without any depth of guidance for Islamic reconstruction of thought and intellectualism (Iqbal, 1934).

The emanation of an SRP as a challenging case and richness of Islamic economics within a rigorous scientific philosophy of its own derived from the ontological foundation of the Qur’ān requires this certification in correct conception and terminolo- gies. Many of the terms used to explain certain ideas have gone wrong in socio-scientific terms in Za- man’s paper. Thereby, the illumination of the Qur’ān and the world-system by their ontological essentiality cannot be pointed out by such an incon- gruous approach in spanning the imminent methodological worldview.

In the derivation and development of the SRP of Islamic economics within the Qur’ānic methodological worldview, it is essential to commence and establish the foundation on its correct ontological premise. In Islam the primal ontological premise of the SRP is the Qur’ān and its exclusive message of monotheistic Oneness, tawḥīd. The deeper understanding of verses of the Qur’ān invokes the prac- tice of ta’wīl. Ta’wīl [See Gordon D. Newby (2002). A concise encyclopedia of Islam (Re- print ed.). Oneworld] means deriving the deeper, hidden, and extensive meaning pertaining to the generality and details of the world-system under study. All such SRP investigation must induce the wider meaning of tawḥīd as the primal ontology of unity of knowledge in relation to the conception and practicality of the world-system. The concrescence of the world-system is then to be explained by such extensive meanings at the levels of conception and quantitative, qualitative, and empirical over- encompassing phenomenology.

The revolutionary scope, nature, structure, and relevance of the tawḥīd worldview in all of the SRP of Islamic intellectualism has been abandoned for a long time now (al-Ghazali, 1924/1998). The earlier scholars could not understand the ontological func- tionality of tawḥīd in relation to the world-system in terms of the precept of unity of knowledge. The present days entrants into this field do not embrace this idea. Resulting from these continuing intellectual scenarios of the Qur’ānic gap, Islamic economics and scientific inquiry have remained in oblivion.

The emerging continued experience of the critical observer has been like dancing before the wolves without being aware of the nature of the thing. Za- man’s paper has failed to raise the Qur’ānic ontological consciousness. This, therefore, fails to be a guide for the potentiality of the Islamic socio- scientific worldview.

The Qur’ānic intellectual worldview, as I see it today, has been failed by Muslim scholarship at large. It is not at all sufficient to clamor regarding the big, rich, and powerful institutions of Muslim money, finance, and assets. These were not the foundational pillars in the rise of Islam in its verita- ble history (Toynbee, 1987). The decadence of intellectual power and the consequential intellectual deprivation of Muslims in these challenging times dim the light at the end of the abysmal tunnel to revive. This experience casts serious doubt regarding the Islamic intellectual rebirth as long as its detachment from the Qur’ān, tawḥīd, and the world- system continues. Zaman’s paper ought to have cast light in such subtle, substantive, and argumentative directions even though in simple writing. Yet furthermore, this failure is pronounced in all of the earlier and present days’ Muslim scholarship without hardly an exception among the thoughtful after the classical age of Islam. And now the same intellectual emptiness remains during the post-Covid 19 times (Choudhury, 2021).

In the end, it must be noted that a great deal of honest, open, sincere, and engaged intellectual discourse is needed to bring the Muslim minds together in cultivating the Islamic (Qur’ānic) pathway. We note the verse of the Qur’ān in the way of this guidance. The Qur’ān declares: “Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds” (Qur’ān, 81:27).

(11)

References

al-Badawi, M. (2010). Man & the universe: An Islamic perspective. Wakeel Books.

Barrow, J.D. (1991). Theories of everything: The quest for ultimate explanation. Oxford University Press.

Boland, L.A. (1989). The methodology of economic model building: Methodology after Samuelson. Routledge.

al-Ghazali, M. (1998). The niche of lights (D. Buchman, Trans.). Brigham University Press. (Original work published 1924)

Carnap, R. (1966). Kant’s synthetic a priori. In M. Gard- ner (Ed.), Philosophical foundations of physics: An in- troduction to the philosophy of science (pp. 177-183).

Basic Books.

Choudhury, M.A. (2021). Islamic economics and COVID-19: The economic, social and scientific conse- quences of a global pandemic. Routledge.

Einstein, A. (1940). Science and Religion. Nature, 146, 605-607. https://doi.org/d5tjnr

Friedrich, C.J. (Ed. & Trans.). (1949). The philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant’s moral and political writings.

The Modern Library.

Henderson, J.M., & Quandt, R.E. (1958).

Microeconomic theory: A mathematical approach.

McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Iqbal, M. (1934). The reconstruction of religious thought in Islam. Oxford University Press.

Masud, M.K. (1993). Shatibi’s theory of meaning. Islamic Studies, 32(1), 5-16. https://bit.ly/3cB6bH1

Nabi, M.B. (1983). The Qur’ānic Phenomenon (M.T. el- Mesawi, Trans.). American Trust Publications. (Origi- nal work published 1946)

Newby, G. (2002). A concise encyclopedia of Islam (Re- print ed.). Oneworld., London, Eng.

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Russell, B. (1990). A history of Western philosophy.

Unwin Paperback.

Schrodinger, E. (1974). What Is Life? & Mind and Matte. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng.

Schuon, F. (1976). Understanding Islam. Unwin Paper- backs.

Sherover, C.M. (1971). Heidegger, Kant and time.

Indiana University Press.

Toynbee, A.J. (1987). A study of history. Oxford Universi- ty Press.

Zaman, A. (2021). Islamic alternatives to the secular morality embedded in modern economics. Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Islamic Economics, 34(2), pp.

Translations of verses from the Qur’an are taken from A.

Yusuf Ali (1946). The Holy Qur’an Tanslation and Commentary. Islamic Propagation Center International.

Masudul Alam Choudhury was recently serving as Professor & Dean Faculty of Business Administration University of Science and Technology Chittagong, Bangladesh until Covid-19 attacked worldwide. He is now the International Chair of Postgraduate Program of Islamic Economics & Finance Faculty of Economics, Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia (https://www.ief-trisakti.ac.id/). Prior to this he taught at the Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. He has taught economics for twenty-two years in Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada before taking his retirement. He now continues on to conduct advanced research and teaching at all levels of pedagogy. His research area of focus and teaching at the doctoral level is economics and epistemology of unity of knowledge, and its functional ontological conceptualization and application to the world-system in diverse areas. In this domain are included political economy, economic theory, financial issues, and integral relations between science and society. His methodological approach is system-oriented and mathematical while invoking philosophy of science and empirical application.

Professor Choudhury has published profusely in refereed journals and many book with leading academic publishers. His above-mentioned focus has prevailed in all such academic outlets. He hast 270 publications with thousands of citations including a latest book on Covid 19 which is published by Routledge in 2021. Professor Choudhury has won international academic awards. E-mail: masudc60@yahoo.ca

(12)

ملا ةيناملعلا قلاخلأل ةيملاسلإا لئادبلا ت

ض ثيدحلا داصتقلاا يف ةنم :

سأ ةقرو ةشقانم نامز د

يردوش ملاع دوعسم

،يتكاسيرت ةعماج ،داصتقلاا ةيلك ،دعاسم ذاتسأ ايسينودنإ ،اتركاج

.صلختسلا س َ

أ ةقرو ىلع قيلعتلا اذه نم فدهلا ( نامز د

2021 إ وه ) م َن ءاقل َع ةرظ بجي ام ىلع ةما

نوكت نأ هيلع

ملا ةرظنلا ةدافتس

اذهك حرط نم ب قلعتي اميف

لبقتسم راطإ يف يملاسلإا داصتقلاا

هسسأو هتازكترم يملعلا

ة . َي ،ةقيرطلا هذهبو دقتع

قيلعتلا اذه ُّدع مم تاناكمإ نع ثحبلا نكمي هنأ

ريوطتو عسولأا يعامتجلاا لاجلماو ،يملعلا هجهنو ،يملاسلإا داصتقلاا كلذ

ةنراق مم ةبراقم للاخ نم

لاب روظن ذهل يجيردتلا سيسأتلا للاخ نم .يبرغ لا ةبراقملا ه

يجهنلا ة داصتقلاا لبقتسم فاشتكا نكمي

هقايس يف يملاسلإا يدوجمولا

.يملعلاو حرطلا اذه لثممي ةغلاب ةمهم

- ةقاش اهنأ لاإ -

يف اًعم نيريثكلل

.يعامجلا ملعتلا روظنم :ةلا َّدلا تاملكلا ايجولومتسبا ،يملاسلإا داصتقلاا ،يملاسلإا يملاعلا ماظنلا ،ةعيرشلا ،ديحوتلا

فينصت

:JEL Z12

فينصت

KAUJIE W :