For more recent emails in this discussion, see: Continued Discussion of IE Syllabus
23: Later posts in this email thread are being posted on my Islamic Worldview Blog – see: Another Syllabus for Islamic Economics, 24: Islamic Approach to Micro: Introduction, 25: A Spiritual Obstacle to Genuine IE 26: Questioning ALL of Economic Theory?
Dear Dr. Zaman:
I am planning an issue of the journal I edit (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, founded 1941) on the ways in which religious traditions offer the potential for new paradigms in economics. The starting premise is that neoclassical economics represents a particular theology (originally Calvinist, but now nihilist) and that treating it as a universal instrument of secular salvation is, in itself, a form of neocolonialism. In the past, colonialism was a product of the Bible and the gun. In the new world order, all that is really required is to convince Western-trained elites that neoclassical economics and other branches of Western social science are culturally neutral and therefore safe to adopt.
I invite you write an article for this issue. You have indicated a desire to develop an endogenously developed Islamic economics, one that is not simply a response to or adjunct of neoclassical thought. That is is precisely what I am looking for. To make sense of why the world needs Islamic economics, it seems to me necessary to reflect critically on the damage caused by liberal individualism, which explicitly denies the possibility of any purposes outside the self and yet offers no explanation for the source of individual purpose. If the problem can be named clearly, then even skeptics may begin to understand the value that Islamic economics can play.
Since economics plays a subsidiary role in any theologically-based concept of how to realize a good society, I recognize that your approach might not conform to a model that takes up a standard set of issues in economics, such as banking, markets, public finance, and the like. In my experience, the quintessential question is how the nature of property rights relates to the nature of human existence. Capitalism envisions a self protected by an almost impenetrable wall, and communism envisions a self without boundaries. Both of those ontologies fail, and yet there is remarkably little work that aims to define the nature of a self born into a world of social obligations and with an aspiration toward self-transcendence. What kinds of laws and institutions will serve to promote that sort of self? The chief problem with societies organized around social obligations in the past is that they tend toward parochialism. How did Islam function to overcome that problem during its golden age? Another problem that most societies have faced in the past is feudalization, in which patron-client relationships grow to the point of creating barriers to more fluid social relations. The growth of corporations today is having that effect once more, shrinking the sphere of res publica and expanding the sphere of private governing structures. Has Islam found a way to counter that tendency? Those are the sorts of historical problems that I regard as the primary appropriate subject matter of economics, even though that falls far outside the parameters of standard positivist views of the function of economics. I particularly like your statement: “The fundamental economic problem is a normative one: what should an individual (and a society) do with surplus wealth?” That is a much more important question than how to achieve allocative efficiency.
The questions I would like you to address may not be possible to answer at this stage. But I am not looking for final definitive answers, just plausible claims. The strongest claim in favor of Adam Smith’s version of capitalism is that it offers a method of self-regulation. The question that capitalism fails to address is how to maintain the conditions under which self-regulation functions properly. Those conditions seem to require attention to the character of citizens and their leaders. No one has yet proposed a method of making that aspect of the “economy” self regulating.
If you agree to write an article for this issue, I would expect much of it to draw from your earlier work, such as the literature survey on the history of Islamic economics that you published nine years ago. The amount of original material in the present article would be up to you. The length of the article should be at least 8,000 words and no more than 25,000 words.
The deadline for the article is September 1, but that can be negotiated if you are interested in writing but would have difficulty meeting that deadline.
Please let me know if this interests you.
Cliff
Clifford W. Cobb, Editor,
American Journal of Economics and Sociology
ajeseditor@gmail.com, cliff.cobb@gmail.com
phone: 916-448-6460
=====My response to Cliff================
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Asad Zaman <asad.zaman@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
Dear Cliff
Thanks for your interest in my work. I am very interested in your proposed project. As a matter of fact, I recently presented a paper at a workshop on Islamic Economic in Istanbul which fits your requirements very nicely. I already have a draft ready, and should be able to send you a more polished version in a week or two.
Asad
PS: Given your interest in my work, you might enjoy reading my short post (600 words) on “The Coca-Cola Theory of Happiness” which lies at the foundations of modern economics.
======Cliff’s response to mey acceptance=========================
Dear Asad (if I may),
Thank you for agreeing to provide a paper for this issue of the journal. There is certainly no hurry. I am in the middle of editing the current issue. But I welcome your contribution at any time.
Regarding the Coca-Cola Theory of Happiness, I certainly agree with your critique. The shrinkage of the presumed motivation that guides human action into self-destructive hedonism has been accelerating since economics began in the 18th century. I am currently reading a book written by Quesnay about China, which he regarded as the closest approximation to the physiocratic ideal in his time. The elements of that book that deal with what we would now classify as “economic” are relatively sparse. Quesnay certainly understood that political economy is part of much larger cultural whole. Adam Smith and the other philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment also recognized the comprehensive character of political economy, but by the time of Ricardo, much of that had been lost. There has thus been a steady erosion of the potential to approach social problems with wisdom. But this is true of all academic disciplines, in large part, I think, because of the hubris of intellectuals since Kant. All thought is now human-centered. The leap from Kant to “revealed preferences” is really not so great, although Kant seemed to have thought that the brain alone was sufficient–no need for mouth and stomach. I think it is no accident that all of the great social thinkers of the late 19th century in the West had a nervous breakdown. Weber’s “iron cage” of rationality is more oppressive than ever and yet seemingly more invisible to the majority of Americans, who still look to technology as the source of salvation.
But Weber, like so many others, was more prescient in his critique than in the formulation of any sort of constructive response. Socialism was a constructive response to capitalism, but it is subject to many of the same pitfalls. The only real hope lies in traditions with deep roots, which can anchor responses that are tied to the past and that creatively invent new aspects of those traditions.
Cliff
Clifford W. Cobb
Editor, American Journal of Economics and Sociology
ajeseditor@gmail.com, cliff.cobb@gmail.com
phone: 916-448-6460
I am extremely grateful for the flow of ideas that distinguished this dialogue. I would like to point out that the program offered in comparative economics has the following important qualities:
Dr Mahmoud El-Gamal has spelled out very clearly and accurately the nature of the choice we face, in attempting to construct an Islamic Economics. The mainstream orthodoxy is EXTREMELY intolerant of any type of diversity or dissent. In the recent past, I know of two leading heterodox economists who have been forced out of their respectable university jobs by dirty tricks. The marginalization of all forms of heterodoxy, regardless of how empirically accurate they are, is a well known fact. Even Keynes has been kicked out because his views are not in line with Chicago school free market thought. A recent study looked at whether or not there has been some change in syllabus after the Global Financial Crisis. One would expect to see more Keynes, Minsky, Behavioral explanations, etc which would be able to explain why the GFC occurrred. However, the study showed that business as usual continues. The ARCH GARCH models which performed disastrously in the GFC continue to be used for risk prediction etc. Models like DSGE, which have been blamed for their blindness to the possibilty of crisis, continue to be used at Central Banks all over the world.
My apologies for joining the conversation late. I have now reviewed the introductory document that Dr. Mabid has sent, explaining the philosophy of his intended programs. I agree with his approach, but wonder if the label “Islamic” is warranted anymore — unless we reverse the long-standing concept of fiqh as a parallel legal system, as discussed at the end of this email. For most Muslim economists, they should just be economists, period: I know a number of brilliant young Muslim economists now holding senior positions and major Economics departments and Business Schools, with whom I had the pleasure to converse when they were graduate students. My advice to them was not to waste any time or effort on “Islamic economics,” but to try to be the best economists that they can, and that there is plenty of room within Economics for them to inject Muslim perspectives and sensibilities without marketing them or hiding behind the “Islamic” label. Their work, both empirical and theoretical, has surpassed my expectations, and only those who read it with some knowledge of the students’ outside interests would see that what they choose to study and how they study it are clearly influenced by their desire to be good Muslims.In contrast, Dr. Asad’s approach is authentic to the Mawdudist paradigm — which some, including myself, think has proved to be a disastrous failure, but we cannot predict that he and others who share his view will not succeed. Nonetheless, the likelihood of their success must be deemed rather low, based on past experience. More importantly, though, this approach fails to speak the language of Economics, and, therefore, fails to engage the profession in any reasonable conversation. Even those of us who have been trying to speak that language but who were not as talented as the younger generation that I mentioned above have failed to contribute to the conversation despite our best efforts. Because intellectual inquiry and advancement is always a collective effort, cutting ourselves off the mainstream makes the probability of success infinitesimal to zero.On the specifics of Dr. Mabid’s proposal, I will add this: If there is to be an “Islamic Economics” at all, it should be a discipline to reformulate law and fiqh, not the other way around. The idea that “religious scholars” should have independent authority from secular sciences and political authority to determine a parallel legal system should be abandoned. There is nothing to stop economists (Muslim or otherwise) from doing work for Muslim societies, and its analyses should be reflected in the laws and regulations of those countries adhering to contemporary Islamic conceptions. In other words, “Islamic Economics” as “Economics for Muslim societies” would make sense to me, and may be what Dr. Mabid has in mind in his curriculum, although I fear that he is still conceding too much power to people who qualify as “fuqaha” in terms of historical methods of accreditation, but not in the original sense of fiqh as “understanding” of scripture and tradition in light of social realities and secular sciences.
Please, again, remove me from this list.
Please remove me from this list.
Dear Dr. Mabid
- conventional economics, giving more attention to new reconstructions, especially those that exclude perfection competition and include reasons for holding money, like search costs.
- critique of neoclassical and Keynesian economics in detail,
- a strong dose of Fiqh, including introducion to Fiqh, Usul Alfiqh, Fiqh Almuamalat, Islamic creed, ethics and the Majallah. This must include a critique of Shari’ah boards members who use ruses in the manner invented by ancient Jewish scholars.
- A heavy doze of analytical Islamic economics as an alternative to the received conventional doctrine.
- An increased dose of mathematics (linear algebra, real analysis, stochastic and differential calculus), statistics and quantitative analysis.
- all above would be paralleled by research to test the many, still untested hypotheses made or to be made by Islamic economists.
This hopefully would produce professional economists who have the tools and the training that enable them to carry out an enlightened dialogue with their conventional colleagues. In addition, they can take forward positions in policy-making institutions and cast their shadows on actual decisions. Prof. Assad is cordially invited to contribute to microeconomics in a fashion equal to that of Joan Robinson, and to give us microecnomic analysis that involves money, production, government, frictions, etc. He is also invited to offer an Islamic economic system that can be represented by a macroeconomic model. Many troubling concepts in conventional economics wait to be handled by Islamic economists, like equilibrium, aggregate demand and aggregate supply, financial market efficiency, microfoundations and the like.
Dear All
AA
Lately I came across comparisons between linear and circular economy paradigms. Perhaps we are too much driven by the idea of circularity, our new PhD program is captioned as “PhD in Islamic Finance and Circular Economy”. The idea is to internalize compassion in the design of financial contracts. Perhaps an example of this idea is the Gates’ Foundation paying the $ 7 million mark up part in the $ 100 million murabaha financing of polio vaccines for Pakistan. For example, if waste rationalization and management solutions were the focus of PIDE university, similar other products could be developed! Similar ideas are abound these days. PIDE University under leadership of Prof Zaman is indeed extremely well placed to innovate solutions to society’s perennial problems which PIDE University previously has failed under influence of wrong prescriptions. So what can we do to innovate policy reforms through PIDE university other premier universities. This is my standing question to all of you since long! I remember raising this to Prof El-Gamal long ago.
Keeping such a perspective in view, is the theme of our new PhD “Islamic Finance and Circular Economy” on the direct direction?
With warmest regards
Although I agree with Asad’s overall view, I feel compelled to point out that there are, of course, economists who have tried to address some of the issues that he raises in the last paragraph.
There are old results, at least dating to Azzi and Ehrenberg’s 1975 JPE paper, which include afterlife in the utility function, and there are numerous papers now that include what they call “social preferences,” i.e. including others’ welfare in one’s own utility.
Perhaps a different question is why anyone, religious or otherwise, should be promoting a utilitarian approach, including its most common application by Muslims who think excessively about Benthamite afterlife reward and punishment, rather than virtue for its own sake. Casual empiricism suggests that the vast majority of Muslims are indeed utilitarian — convinced only to pursue virtue by promises of delights and warnings of fire. Indeed, the Qur’an itself suggests this type of “trade” for the afterlife, which means that the English insights on utilitarian human psychology was acknowledged, at least for the masses.
Best,
Dear Brother Anas Zarka Assalamo Alaikum
Thank you very much for taking out the time and effort to put together a response. With due humility, I would like to suggest that you have seriously mis-understood my position, which is in no way a recommendation of wholesale rejection of the West. A detailed explanation of my actual position is given below. I hope you will read it, and respond further.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY Br Anas Zarka
I agree completely that knowledge is the lost property of the Mo’min and he can take it from wherever he finds it. I have used a vast amount of knowledge that originates in the West in arriving at my position, and many of my articles contain praise and respect for many Western scholars; see for example my post on Three Books to Read. So, this idea that I am rejecting economic theory because it originates from the West is a grave mis-understanding of my position on this issue.
I am completely in harmony with Imam Ghazali’s position. I recommend acceptance of Western sciences which are valid, but I am against acceptance of the RELIGION of the West which conflicts with Islamic teachings. So our disagreement is not about whether we should do wholesale acceptance and/or rejection of Western teachings. Our disagreement is on the STATUS of Economic Theory as a branch of Western knowledge. Economic Theory CLAIMS for itself the status of a positive, objective, and factual science. Those who ACCEPT this claim are puzzled by my wholesale rejection of Economic Theory. They consider it to be on par with a rejection of mathematics or physics. However, I REJECT the knowledge claims of Economic Theory. My claim is the following:
Modern Economic Theory is nothing more, and nothing less, than the religion of Worship of the Nafs, which is prohibited by the Quran.
Before I go on to explain and prove my position, I would like to clarify that my position is not unique – I have arrived at it by studying many different Western scholars who have come to the same conclusion by different routes. The FIRST point of great importance is the argument of Philosopher Hilary Putnam in his book of essays called “The Collapse of the Fact/Value Distinction and other essays”. In his essay, he argues the positive and normative statements are mixed up with each other and cannot be separated, contrary to the assertions of the economists that economic theory is positive. The SECOND source of support for my claim is the book of Robert H Nelson entitled “Economics As Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond”. This book makes the case that Economic Theory is mainly and ideology, disguised in the shape of a positive theory. The THIRD source of support is an essay by Julie Nelson entitled “Poisoning the Well: How Economic Theory Damages Our Moral Imagination”. In this essay, Nelson argues that economic theory teaches us immorality in many different ways, by upholding selfish behavior as rational, and suggesting that caring for others and generosity leads to irrational behavior. The FOURTH source of support for my views is the book by Hausman and MacPherson: Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy. This book analyzes how economic analysis and policy decisions always involve moral judgments, even though economists are not aware of them, and deny this. The FIFTH source of support for my argument is my own paper entitled “The Normative Foundations of Scarcity” which should how the apparently objective and factual concept of scarcity conceals three different moral judgments, all of which are in conflict with teachings of Islam.
So to summarize my position, modern economic theory is a RELIGION, not a science. It is the religion of those who REJECT God and the day of Judgment. The heart of economic theory is a model of human behavior according to which ALL RATIONAL human being maximize the pleasure that they get out of consumption over their lifetime. This is EXACTLY the description of the religion of the worship of the Nafs. Just as Imam Ghazali rejected entirely the Polytheistic teachings of Greek Philosophy, so we Muslims must reject entirely the teachings of modern economic theory.
Some Muslim economists have defended utility maximization by introducing concern for Akhira, and concern of others (generosity) into the utility functions. But if you do this, then this is NO LONGER the theory being taught be neoclassical economists. You cannot save Varian and Mankiw by putting Akhira and generosity into the utility function, because their theories COLLAPSE when you do so. EVEN Supply and Demand will NOT work if you have generosity, as I have proven elsewhere. What I am arguing is the standard Microeconomic Textbooks teach the religion of worship of the Nafs. Whether we can CHANGE this to make it compatible with Islam is not RELEVANT.
9 –Dr Anas Zarka: provides detailed evidence that wholesale rejection of ideas from outside Islamic tradition is against the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammad SAW, and also against the Islamic scholastic traditions. Quotes Imam Al-Ghazali regarding the Greek tradition, and the two extremes of complete rejection and complete acceptance. The paper with complete argument of Dr Zarka is linked here:Dr Anas Zarqa comments on Dr. Asad Zaman’s paper on Third Generation Islamic Economics
Dear Friends, based on the notes I circulated earlier to this group, I have prepared a draft of a paper on “Third Generation Islamic Economics” which is attached. This is to be presented at a workshop in Istanbul in a few weeks. Constructive comments on how to improve the paper would be most appreciated.
Dear Brothers: Assalamu Alaikum wrt wbt
This is unfortunate that I have not been participating in this interesting and illuminating discussion due to my personal circumstances and may not be able to do so very often. I like this and will try off and on to come into picture.
Let me make a few points starting from the latest post of Br. Asad Zaman.
- His approach is unique and praiseworthy. His premise: Islam differentiates sharply between USEFUL and USELESS knowledge is very important. His criticism of statistics and other quantitative tools as we were taught is a fresh breeze. Though there are many who speak about the limitations of econometrics to the extent of calling them “Garbage in — Garbage out”; but the way he is “showing” it is something no one else has done among the Islamic economists. I remember my teachers telling me that mathematics is a language, what matters is what you are saying (in other words, what you put in equations, you should be able to say the same thing in simple English). This is very much what Br. Asad wants the teachers to tell the students and learning by doing technique is the best way to drive the message home.
- However, his generalizations with respect to the so-called second generation Islamic economists are unfair. There would be few writers who will fit his descriptions like:
“The second generation was FOOLED by the claims of neoclassical economics to be objective, scientific and factual, and ACCEPTED these claims.”
“The DEFINING characteristic of the second generation is that when they see a conflict between Samuelson and the Quran, then they re-interpret the Quran to make it conform to Samuelson.”
Instead of using “generations” terminology (since we have inter-generations writers), let me say that almost all writers in Islamic economics criticised the neoclassical economists and wrote about what I can call “the impossibility theorem of positive economics”, [but possibility of making “positive” statements]. The classical piece in this respect is the paper of Dr. Anas Zarqa ” Islamic economics: An Approach to Human Welfare” presented to the 1976 Conference.
There is hardly any Islamic economist who fully accepts the neoclassical axioms, though some of “conventional” concepts had been “adapted” in Islamic economics. For example, the profit motive; free markets, scarcity of resources etc; all duly re-interpreted; conforming Samuelson to Quran, rather than the other way around.
- The program distributed by Dr. Mabid which I am still studying is perhaps the best and most comprehensive program designed to the best of my knowledge during my forty years involvement in teaching and research in Islamic economics. The attempts being made by Dr. Asad are also in the same category. In my view, these prominent scholars’ attempts if given proper recognition and implemented, they will go a long way to put the teaching of Islamic economics on the right track.
- One problem that I have always faced with teaching programs in Islamic economics since we introduced one at IIUI in 1983 is that if we make it very demanding, the graduates should be able to “cash” the skills learnt in their careers. Depending on “commitment to Islam” would not be a sufficient motive to enroll in these programs. They must be convinced that the extra effort to have double or triple “Major” (not to speak of specialization) is worth their time, effort and money. I urge both Dr. Asad and Mabid to give this dimension a VERY careful consideration. Teaching Islamic economics (may be calling it economics from Islamic perspective) must be rewarding for the graduates in THIS life. Let the reward in the HEREAFTER, be a bonus. A very BIG BoNUS of course.
Wassalam
Dear Tariqullah Khan Saheb,
Assalamualikum wrbt
My question is addressed to Prof. Asad Zaman. I was wondering about the types of pedagogical reforms you were able to suggest or introduce at LUMS, IIUI and specifically, PIDE university as President. We can benefit from such reforms to bring suitable changes in our universities. If the reforms were suggested and their implementation faced barriers, what type of barriers were faced and what can be done to overcome those barriers!
At our university we are trying to review our pedagogical approach and knowing about your valuable experience will InshaaAllah be helpful.
Dear Friends
I deeply appreciate the courtesy of Dr. Mabid Ali Al-Jarhi for gracefully accepting and seriously taking on board my strongly dissenting view. I believe that the Western intellectual tradition has gone seriously astray in terms of the SOCIAL SCIENCES, because they failed completely to understand the nature of human beings. The HOMO ECONOMICUS at the heart of economic theory has no heart and no soul — The concept of spirituality does not exist in their study of humans and societies. When they ignore the most important driver of human behavior — a strong sense of justice, built into our nature (Fitra) by God — then they are unable to understand simple results llike the generosity and fairness of human beings in the Dictator Game and the Ultimatum Game.
I would request the Ulema on this group to consider the following simple question: Is it permissible for a Muslim to TEACH students that rational behavior consists of maximizing lifetime pleasure (utility) obtained from maximizing consumption? What is not understood clearly is HOW STRONGLY modern economic theory DEPENDS on the assumption of selfish behavior. If people do not selfishly take everything for themselves ignoring the needs of their brothers then EVEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND theory FAILS! I can prove this, and have done so elsewhere.
I have studied the intelllectual tradition of the West extensively to understand how they could go so far wrong in their understanding of human behavior — this is why behavioral economics keep showing HUGE conflicts between the rational behavior assumed in economics and actual behavior. The rational behavior models of Fama and French could not understand the Global Financial Crisis, while behavioral economists can. But this is not to say that behavioral economics offers a solution – it too fails to recognize the heart and soul. But it least it deals with real human observable behavior instead of that of rational robots.
I would like to recommend the distiguished scholars on this mailing list to read my recent post/article on the battle of methodologies which EXPLAINS one of the deep flaws at the basis of Western thinking about human beings. This is linked below:
https://weapedagogy.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/method-or-madness/
I am preparing a talk on Islamic Economics for an upcoming workshop in Istanbul. This talk answers the question often posed in response to these critiques: Indeed, I wrote to Kenneth Arrow and sent him my paper: The Empircal Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Survey of the Literature – he wrote back as follows:\
From: Arrow Kenneth J. [mailto:arrow@stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 6:21 AM
To: Vice Chancellor Office PIDE
Subject: Re: Survey of the massive amount of empirical evidence
Dear Dr. Zaman:
Thank you for the very complete and well-argued critique of the utility-maximization theory.
Of course, the remaining question is, what should take the place of that theory?
Yours truly
Kenneth J. Arrow
Kindly look into the response of Prof. Asad Zaman. as well as his latter response.
Asad Zaman’s opinion is not to be taken lightly. You may have kindly noticed that the program does not teach neoclassical economics as is, but includes most if not all the critique surveyed by Steve Keen and others. Hopefully, program graduates would have a better chance to response to challenges to Islamic economics, using rigorous analysis rather than reinterpreting the divine text. The issue that is particularly objectionable to him is considering Islamic economics as part of the economics discipline. Such objection would require taking the word economics from “Islamic economics.” I am appealing for further wisdom on this and other issues.
Warmest regards,
To the best of my knowledge, the terminology of 3rd generation of Islamic Economics was introduced by me in my paper on Reviving the Promise of Islamic Economics. which was presented at the 11th ICIEF in Malaysia in 2016, and subsequently published in the IIUM journal. The basic premise of this paper is that the first generation saw the Islamic system as a radical and revolutionary alternative to both Capitalism and Socialism, which promised equity and justice. The second generation was FOOLED by the claims of neoclassical economics to be objective, scientific and factual, and ACCEPTED these claims. Once these were accepted then Islamic Economics became a minor branch of mainstream neoclassicals, adopting nearly all of its frameworks, methodologies, and ways of thinking about the world. This was a MAJOR MISTAKE. Neoclassical economics is a detailed working out of the religion of worship of the Nafs, which is explicitly prohibited in the Quran. It starts with the premise that ALL human beings have (or should have) as purpose of life the maximization of utility of consumption — that is, pleasure derived from the life of this world. All human action is rational if and only if it is directed towards this purpose. All the mathematics and analytics so fondly developed in neoclassical is based on this premise which is directly in conflict with Islam. For three fundamental flaws in the formulation of modern social sciences in the West, see my talk on Economics for the 21st Century, which explains how Islamic teaching, and only Islamic teachings, can help us overcome these flaws to create a radical and revolutionary approach to a new type of economics so desperately needed today. I have already constructed several courses which take an Islamic approach to teaching conventional subjects like statistics, micro and macro, and I have recorded lectures and put course and reference materials on openly accessible websites.
One thought on “Discussion of Mabid Al-Jarhi Syllabus for Islamic Economics”
Comments are closed.