Dr. Javid Akbar Ansari has published an article entitled "The Poverty of Islamic Economics" in The Universal Message, February 1990 Issue, in which he has expressed a hostility to Islamic economics and an attitude towards Islamic economists akin to contempt for their failure as economists and their associations with certain men in positions of power and also with certain political parties-in or out of power. Of course, the first feelings that arise in the mind of the reader of his article are not entirely pleasant either in themselves or towards Doctor Sahib. This is only natural especially for one, who has devoted the best years of his youth and middle age to Islamic economics. But on second reading, I, for one, felt that there were certain things in his article that I could agree with, but certain others that I could not agree with. That is the reaction to any writing. Part agreement and Part disagreement is always to be expected. On the whole, I, nevertheless, wondered whether Dr. Javid Ansari had done a service or a disservice to Islamic economics, maybe even to Islam.

According to Hegel, there is always a "cunning of reason" at work in human affairs. Often, history has some unlikeliest people serve against their own conscious will as the human agents of advancement and the means for the achievement of certain ends. It could be that Doctor Sahib's article may become an inspiration to abler men than I to reply to the article in question and show its author riches where he sees only poverty of Islamic economics. What is more, it may cause Islamic economists to renew and re- double their efforts and to re-dedicate themselves to speed up the development of Islamic economics, and, hoping against hope, it might even conceivably motivate those whom Allah has placed in the positions to do so to provide their moral and material support to Islamic economics, which is to say, to those engaged in the study, research and writing, and creative work of it. If this comes about, well then Dr. Javid Ansari would have done a service, not only to Islamic economics, but also Islam itself. At any rate, the article has directly caused me to compose this present article to put up a defense of and a plea for Islamic economics as best I can.

Besides his criticisms of Islamic economics on theoretical grounds, Dr. Javid Ansari has also made critical observations about "General Ziaul Haq, Dr.Mahathir, King Fahd and
Husni Mubarak" and has further alleged that "Islamic economists are the advisors of Mahathir and Fahd. (and) also the advisers of the Islamic parties." Why should that fact be important for Islamic economics, he did not say. (And by the way, what is the difference between "advisors" and "advisers"? I will not comment upon the syntax and spellings here, however. The paper should have been either written more carefully and/or edited more carefully.) Anyway, I do not know of the politics of such matters, as to who is whose advisor and for what reason, but I do not think it is important from the theoretical standpoint.

In Dr. Javid Ansari's scheme, it is apparently an important fact whether a given Islamic economist is an advisor to a national leader, an institutional leader, or a political party. From my standpoint, it is also besides the point-it has always been so- whether a national leader - president, prime minister, or king - is/was seriously interested or not in Islamic economics in the proper sense of the word or uses! Used it only as a front or facade for his own political ends. All I can say is that, like all rulers and politicians, Muslim ones are not beyond being devious. I mention this because Dr. Javid Ansari alleges that President Zia of Pakistan "never took Islamic economics very seriously." If he didn't, I am not the least bit surprised. I also get the impression from his article that the "present ruling elite" in Pakistan has even less interest in Islamic economics. If so, so be it. Cest Ia vie

But Dr. Javid Ansari has also questioned the motives of the Islamic economists themselves and the Islamic political parties in Muslim countries (though, he mentions not a single name of an Islamic economist, dead or living, or Islamic political party, in or out of power) and has charged both with working under the guise of Islamic economics with "the growing secularization of the social and economic life of the Muslim countries."

Finally, for want of space, I will pass up the opportunity to comment upon Dr. Javid Ansari's remarks about the on going Muslim insurgencies and struggles, or jihad's, in a number of countries. Suffice it to say that I wish and pray to Allah for my coreligionists' success in their endeavors. As to serious interest in Islamic economics, I can assure Dr. Javid Ansari that, as a student of it, my interest in it is a genuine and serious one in the most proper sense of the word. Actually, since 1964 I have taken interest in little else except Islamic economics. But I have often despaired and regretted it in just about the fashion in which King Solomon despaired and regretted in his old age that, instead of asking Yahweh God for wisdom, he should have rather asked Him for money instead but this dawned on him only after he had received the gift of wisdom from Yahweh. In my own olden years, it has begun to dawn on me that, instead of abandoning a career in accounting and taking out five years of my youth to study economics (at what cost and sacrifice I will not even mention here) and devoting another twenty years in pursuing a study of Islamic economics, I should have stuck to accounting and made a career of it. But all that is of autobiographical interest only, though it may have shaped my view of Islamic econ6mics as autobiography always shapes one's view of philosophy, science, and religion. Also, it might bring into focus my background before I embarked upon Islamic economics and why. Early on in my life, I had reached the conclusion that for any society, even a family, to be a viable institution, it had to have a viable economy. This was before I had ever laid my eyes on a line written by Marx, who I later, as a graduate student of economics at the University of Southern California, discovered had a famous thesis that the anatomy of civil society lies in its political economy. From this discovery or re- discovery came my realization that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan had no chance of being properly Islamic until and unless it had an Islamic economy in the proper sense of the word. No amount of faith, exhortation, and dedication to Islam was going to be a real help in the establishment of Islam in Pakistan and to sustain it as an Islamic society in the absence of an Islamic economy. To the achievement that goal, I decided to make a contribution, however small. Thereupon, I abandoned my accounting studies, and embarked upon my economic studies. A few years later, when the time came to choose a dissertation topic for my doctorate in economics, I chose the topic of - you guessed it - the political economy of the Islamic State.

I have never worked as an economist - Islamic or of any other kind - and have never been, neither am I now, an advisor to any person or party. Actually, I have never even attended an Islamic economic conference for the simple reason that I was never invited to one. Mine has been purely and simply alone study of Islamic economics, away from academia, research organizations, Islamic conferences, and political parties. Whether this has hurt or help my understanding of Islamic economics, I am unable to determine. I suspect, however, that the former has been the case. But I have had a fair amount of experience of the business and the work-a-day world since I went to work for a British company in Karachi in 1952. I have worked both in Pakistan and the United States, in industry as well as government. In addition to it, I have taught for ten years at a couple of colleges and later at the University of Karachi and have had the occasion to teach a whole range of subjects in commerce and business administration, including economics. Finally, I know Islamic economists by their reputation only and their work through their writings in the main.

For me it is totally immaterial whether one is interested in Islamic economics because of his religious conviction, intellectual curiosity, political activity, or because one has a job and does research work or teaching work in the area of Islamic economics. Ideally, one should be doing Islamic economics, because one thinks that the correct and beneficent economics society to be created and sustained in a Muslim country or in all Muslim countries is and will be the type of economy that has been envisioned in the Quran and Sunnah, viz., the economic society of the ummatan wasatan. The point I am making is that whether the motives of an Islamic economist are moral, religious, and ideal, or purely selfish and calculated (usually the motives why anyone studies anything - law, engineering, medicine, accounting, or what have you), it comes down to the same thing. If one does good, in this case studies Islamic economics, out of purely selfish reasons of gainful employment, or political ambition, that is all right too. Personally, I think no one's motives are ever entirely pure - as in politics, so in science - no matter what one does in life. What is more, no one ever understands fully even one's own motives, much less those of others. So let us give everyone the benefit of doubt and grant everyone that when one advocates and when one denounces one does so out of all good faith. As I would not want my intellectual integrity questioned, so I would not question anyone else's. I am at pains to make this point only to stress that my response to Doctor Sahib is being made entirely on academic grounds. Until I read his article, I wasn't even aware of his wujud (existence). Even so, if anything I write here hurts his feelings, I offer my apologies in advance. Hurting his or anyone's feelings is no part of my intent.

I fail to appreciate why Dr.Javid Ansari made a point of taking certain Islamic economists to task for being, or having been, advisors to kings, presidents, and prime ministers, institutional and organizational leaders, or for serving in the governments of even dictatorial power holders and rulers. Giving advice is a perfectly legitimate activity, paid activity if you will, for anyone, including Islamic economists. Also, it is perfectly legitimate and honorable for an Islamic economist, or a secular economists, to serve in the government of a man in national power. In this respect, I am inclined to think that doctor sahib has shown an attitude and tone of intemperance towards the Islamic economists, Who have been fortunate or on-fortunate to have been advisors of men in power, or to associate themselves with certain political parties, or to have served under the leadership of certain presidents, prime ministers or kings. With this said, I will now move to the theoretical side of the matter.

 On the theoretical grounds, the first observation which Doctor Sahib makes is the following:

"Islamic economics represents an attempt at legitimizing ethics and institutions of capitalism. This becomes abundantly clear when we examine the technical writings of the Islamic economists. Invariably these scholars work within the neo-classical paradigm."

I have to agree with the author that the mainstream of Islamic economics seems to me too to have opted for both capitalism as an economic system and its scientific representation in economic theory, viz., the "neoclassical paradigm." I happen to think that this has been more an error than a correct choice of a paradigm of economics. There are, however, historical, political (both domestic within the Muslim countries as well as international - chiefly the pressure of World Capitalism and the capitalist countries, especially, the United States of America), and sociological reasons for the co-option of capitalism as the predominant mode of production, distribution, and organization, and of Western economics of the classical and neo classical variety as the predominant economic philosophy, ideology, and theory in Muslim countries, with only occasional and minor exceptions to the rule. Of this, Pakistan is certainly the prime example. We embraced American capitalism and free enterprise totally un-ashamedly and to the extent that it became one of the factors in the dismemberment of the nation. What differences there were between West and East Pakistan were frightfully heightened and deepened incalculably many times more, only to become, eventually, insufferable for our former countrymen, who were East Pakistanis and are now Bangladeshis. The choice of capitalism also prevented us from devoting our attention to the development of Islamic economics, or making any attempt at the Islamization of the Pakistani economy. Be that as it may, the whole Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular are too dependent on the West to claim either independence of ideology or of practice when it comes to economic matters. Fundamentally, west of capitalism. America wanted Pakistan to be capitalist and a pawn with in the capitalist block of nations and this became a powerful factor in our view of even Islamic economics, but also shaped our view of the world since the early 1950's. We saw the world, its systems, and the peoples through looking glasses made in America.

Actually, we were handed a vision of the world by the United States and we swallowed it whole. In that it sat well with our own choice of capitalism and capitalistic paradigm of economics, it provided all the more propensity for formulating or re-formulating the concepts of Islamic economics under the neo-classical paradigm of economics, which was/remains the ruling paradigm of economics in the normal science of economics in the English speaking world, but chiefly the United States. During the 1950's and 60's, the situation was that if you weren't a disciple of the economics approved by the United States and had not learned economics at the feet of the American gurus; you just weren't an economist. And if the priests of neo-classical economics could do something about it, you were chased out of the profession, or at the very least, you didn't get an American scholarship or your party or institution didn't receive American funds. The whole Pakistani society was involved in it, though I remember one distinguished Pakistani economist, viz., Professor Q.M.Farid, at that time chairman of the Departments of Economics and Commerce at the University of Karachi, who was ever so critical of the trap or the strings that were attached to the American aid. He, understandably, went Out of favor of the Americans as well as the Pakistani authorities. Something to think about! As in war, so in economics: one takes a position at considerable personal costs.

Be that is it may, in the quotation from Dr. Javid Ansari given above, I take exception to his adjectival "Invariably." It is simply not correct that all Islamic economists have opted for the neo-classical paradigm for theorizing about Islamic economics. I was struck by the fact that Doctor Sahib has not mentioned a single work of1slamic economics. My surmise is that his reading of the literature of Islamic economics is rather scanty and sporadic, not detailed and systematic. In some ways, it borders, I am sorry to say, on ignorance. I am quite certain he has not read my writings. Because if he had read my doctoral dissertation "The Political Economy of the Islamic State: A Comparative Study" (he may not have read it in that it never found a publisher in Pakistan and is available only in micro film and in references in other writings, especially, in M.Nejatullah Siddiqi's Muslim Economic Thinking: A Survey of Contemporary Literature and Khurshid Ahmad, ed., Studies in Islamic Economics, my books, viz., Studies Towards An Understanding of the Developmental Perspective 1979, and Broader Dimensions of  The ideology of Pakistan, 1988, and my articles published in Arabia: the Islamic world review, the American general of Islamic social, science. The universal message, etc: He would have known that I, for one, did not "were within the neo-classical paradigm." I am constantly amazed at well-educated people who make sweeping remarks and condemn a whole class of people, who too are just as well educated people, on the basis of rumors.  Anyway, I am not the only one, certainly not the ablest one, among the Islamic economists, who have serious reservations about the neo-classical paradigm of economics for the study of Islamic economics. But this is something Doctor Sahib will have to research for himself in the process of his research in the subject; and will have to make up his own mind as to who espouses which paradigm. But enough of general comments!

I will now make more specific comments with regard to the specific and pointed criticisms which Dr. Javid Ansari makes in his article.

1) Doctor Sahib writes:

'The 'Islamic' consumer/producer/public policy maker is a welfare maximizer..."s

Comment: What else can one be? If not maximizer! The first premise of economic theory is, has to be, maximizing behavior, which is the behavioral attribute of the economic actor. Be he or she a buyer or seller, consumer, producer, firm, or any organization, the goal is always to maximize the output, wealth creation, utility or gain from the sale or purchase, consumption, or the application or input of commodities or resources at one's disposal. That is precisely the phenomenon that economics investigates. The economically desirable use of resources is called economizing. Economizing is necessary because economic resources at anyone's disposal are finite and scarce. Any other use of resources, which is not the most economical one, is inefficient, irrational, perverse, un-wise, wasteful, and socially criminal. This applies to every kind of economics-be it capitalist, socialist, Buddhist, or Islamic. It is immaterial whether the resources in question belong to an individual, a family, firm, or nation. To the maximizing postulate of economics there is no alternative. The mini-max principle, whereby an agent minimizes his inputs and maximizes his output, is not only an economic principle, it is also an ethical principle. But I would readily agree that there is more to life than maximization of economic gain, and that moral, social, and spiritual considerations may be brought to bear upon economic actions and decision making.

2) Doctor Sahib writes:
"Islamic economists claim also that in the long run the elimination of interest and the introduction of Zakat etc. are necessary for the maximization of efficient production."

Comment: First of all, that all production has always to be efficient goes without saying. Economics means economizing, which is another word for efficiency. Both words mean getting the maximum. Output from the minimum inputs. In my books, and recently in an article entitled "The Concept of Spending in Islamic Economics," (The Universal Message, November 1989), I have described in details how and why both the elimination of interest in the economy as a whole (not merely in some transactions in the banking sector) and the institution of Zakat would help the macroeconomic maintain and sustain a higher level of employment and of production. Of course, there exists no empirical evidence of it at the present time, because there is no Islamic economy in existence anywhere. As is well known, the ban on interest requires the participation of the providers of capital in the real economic functions of risk-bearing, enterprise, and investment in the productive facilities, which enhance both the productive powers of the society as well as the process of wealth creation, on the one hand, and an economically equitable and a socially just distribution of social output and national income, on the other. Again, the institution of Zakat is a direct incentive to the holders of idle funds to channel them into production or economic activities of their choice. Hence, both mechanisms do provide a perfectly plausible case for the assertion, or hypothesis, that in the long run the elimination of interest and the introduction of Zakat would, indeed, lead to more efficient and greater production in the society. I suggest Dr.Javid Ansari should give the matter some more thought.

3) In building upon his two statements quoted above, Doctor Sahib writes:

"The methodological similarity necessitates that the ethics of capitalism-acquisitiveness, competition, primacy of material well being, freedom, liberal equality--are all endorsed by Islamic economists. Islam is seen not as a distinct civilization but as a means of reforming capitalism."
Comment: Here I find myself in fundamental agreement with Dr. Javid Ansari, though I see nothing wrong with the endorsement by the Islamic economists, as he argues, of the above stated values of capitalism to a degree, but not wholly. Actually, the moment the economists and the powers that be in the West realize this, i.e., that on the agenda of Islamic economics there is nothing more than mere thinking at the margins of capitalism, they rest easy and only feel amused by the song and dance of the Islamic economist. Institutions in the west even sponsor such writings of the Islamic economists, as did the enterprise institute of America in sponsoring research, writing, and publication of Dr. Muhammad Abdur-Rauf's book, viz., A.Muslim Reflects an democratic Capitalism in which the economic system of Islam is presented as a form of thoroughgoing capitalism, ala American capitalism. The capitalistic thinking of Muslims, at times, goes to extremes, as, for example, during the presidency of the late Anwar Sadat when the ulma of the Al-Azhar had gone so far as to declare that capitalistic enterprise was a form of ijitihad, though from the same source, but under the presidency of Abdul Nasser, socialism too had been declared as being fully Islamic. A similar pattern had been in witness in Pakistan too, where socialism and capitalism had been regarded the essence of Islam under the patronage of the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and of Ziaul Haq as the rulers of the country respectively. Be that as it may, it is my considered judgement that Islamic economics and social philosophy are more akin to socialism than capitalism, if I am allowed to use these familiar terms. I, therefore, agree with Dr. Javid Ansari when he says that the "difference between Islam and Western civilization was qualitative in nature. Islam was not a means for reforming capitalism but for annihilating it." If Allama Iqbal had a message in this regard, it was precisely this. At any rate, Islamic economics cannot simply be an "Islamic" version of neo-classical economics prefaced with the "Fatiha," (the first Surah or chapter of the Quran), and with a few verses of the Quran, sayings of the Prophet, and other familiar Arabic phrases interspersed in the expositions
of Islamic economics here and there.

4) In pointing out the non-economic motivation and qualities of the time of the Prophet, Doctor Sahib finds the "ghost of neo-classical economic man conjured up by Islamic economics" is so very un-Islamic and unlike the man of the Prophets generation. Who can disagree on this score? Even Western economists dare not speak of the economic man-he is in such disrepute today. Anyway, Doctor Sahib writes that the Prophet treated economic activity as a "means for achieving spiritual excellence" alone, and, therefore, he "did not save, invest or bequeath property."

Comment: I want to make two comments. First, I do not think the statements made by Dr. Javid Ansari are quite correct.

The Prophet was a merchant by trade, at least until the time when he became the last prophet of Islam and devoted himself to prophetic work on a full time basis. As a
Businessman, of course, he saved and invested. Without doing so he could not have remained in business for very long, certainly not eventually, for want of capital. He would have gone bankrupt as a businessman. It is in the nature of business that the businessman must save and invest. Whether one leaves a fortune behind one is a totally separate question, and has nothing to do with the merits of the argument for saving and investing. Second, how the Prophet conducted himself may be, it is, an ideal which Muslims may not. Also, there is a fallacy of composition here. What a particular or a single person or a group of people in society may do is not necessarily something which it would be either logically possible or practically feasible for all the people in society to do. One person may not save, invest or bequeath, but if everyone did the same, well, then they would have nothing to leave for posterity. Actually, they may leave behind an impoverished nation-without capital, without productive powers, without the infrastructure of development, and so on. A society, a community, and a family must save, invest and bequeath as much property as possible for the later generations. What is more, I think saving and investing and bequeathing have been urged upon Muslims as positive virtues both in the Quran and the Sunnah.

5) Next Doctor Sahib gets into a discussion of the Rawlsian theory of justice and writes:

"Islamic conception of property and justice are rooted in a metaphysics that is at odds with the metaphysical conception underlying Liberalism... (and)... that in the Rawlsian System all individually valued ends are of equal social legitimacy"

Comment: My straight-forward response is: So what? Who died and left Liberalism or the Rawlsian System as the chief criterion to judge the Islamic conception of property and justice by? So what if Islamic metaphysics is at odds with Liberal metaphysics? Besides, I really don't even understand the phrase metaphysics in relation to the Islamic conception of justice and property. For that matter, what is "Islamic metaphysics," or  "Liberal metaphysics". As far as the Islamic conception of property is concerned, it is simple. Property is a trust from Allah. it should be put to use in a manner which is in keeping with the spirit of Islam. Property ought certainly not to be used to exploit and dominate other human beings- certainly not fellow Muslims. Justice in Islam is social justice. It is a necessary accompaniment of Muslim piety, goodness, righteousness, fairness, compassion, charity, and service to community. Both property and justice are meant to benefit the society at large. They help establish what is good and forbid what is bad. I do not even see a need for metaphysicalizing either notion.

6) I am to glade to note that Dr.Javid Ansari realizes that, when all is said and done, "Reason can identify means for given ends but it cannot provide a basis for valuing ends."

Comment: The above is right on the mark. For classical and neo-classical economics, the singular mission that economics has is to describe the process of how the scarce means are to be used to achieve the given ends-no matter what the ends, all ends are equally rational valuable and acceptable. That precisely is the crisis of economics as well as of all Western thought-religious, social, behavioral, political, ethical, psychological, cultural, humanistic, natural, physical - and art and literature. This crisis of the Western culture was announced around the turn of the century by the German philosopher Nietzsche, who declared in his parable of "The Madman" that "God is dead.. We killed Him." What it meant was that, with the victory of secularism, humanism, and human reason, Western thought, philosophy, art, literature, morality, and science had been left without an anchor:
Adrift on the waters of the high sea. In other words, if God does not exist, which is to say, if he is irrelevant, then anything goes. Certainly, this is the state of affairs, today in the West- anything goes. But this state of affairs need not send the Muslim into despair. if Reason cannot help choose ends, let Revelation do so, in the present case, for Islamic economics. Unlike neoclassical economics, Islamic economics cannot accept any and all ends as rational, legitimate, and proper.

7) There is a remarkable paragraph in Dr. Javid Ansari's article to which I want to draw reader's kind attention. In the midst of all his unhappiness with Islamic economics, Doctor Sahib writes sympathetically, beautifully, and with apparent conviction the following lines:

"The Islamic conception of justice can thus assign only instrumental value to freedom and equality. Intrinsic value is assigned to the religious virtues iman, Islam, Taqwa and Ihsan. Islamic theorists thus face the task of conceptualizing a social and economic order in which the practice of the religious virtues (not welfare, not utility) are "maximized". Economic institutions have to be examined and their potential for inducing individuals to accord priority to the attainment of spiritual progress must be identified. The factory, the system of land tenure, the family as a consuming unit, the distributive and marketing channels, the policy making and executing offices, financial institutions all must be redesigned. This is essential to develop an economic system the purpose of which is the promotion of the religious virtues and which balances and constrains individual freedom and social egalitarian concerns in a manner conducive to the development of spirituan consciousness at the mass level in Muslim countries. On reading the above I, at once, experienced within me a spiritual and inelluctual kinship with the author of the above lines. I wished to extend to Dr. Javid Ansari an invitation on behalf of Islamic economics to join the movement and struggle--Islamic economics is a movement and a struggle, which, at once, combines jihad and ijitihad--with a view to help create, construct, and articulate the sort of socio-economic system, which he so ably and persuasively expressed, that is needed to give concrete reality to the economic vision of the Quran. There is a wisdom saying in the Pirkhe Aboth (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers), which states: "Where there are no men, you strive to be a man.' So, why not try your hand at it, Doctor Saheb, and show, guide, and lead where others have, in your opinion, failed to come up to your expectations? Show how Islamic economics ought to be correctly, properly, and fruitfully done. Do it! Show the way. Guide. Lead. You will be gratefully listened to. Certainly, Islamic economics can use all the human talent, genius, and creativeness it can find. Don't just open a shikayaton ka daftar (an office of complaints). Contribute something.

8) But complain Doctor Saheb must. He writes:

"Islamic economics cannot of course raise such questions (i.e., the questions posed in the above quoted paragraph). It is a branch of neo-classical economics and assumes the value neutrality of capitalist institutions... Islamic economics is methodologically incapable of exploring the relationship between institutional structure, individual motivation and value change."

Comment: Good God, man-- just why cannot Islamic economics do all these things, and more? May one ask: Whose Islamic economics have you been reading? Whose "Islamic economics cannot of course raise such questions"? Where did you see a claim made that Islamic economics is "a branch of neo-classical economics"? Which Islamic economist "assumes the value neutrality of capitalist institutions'"? By what methodological criterion are you making the accusation that "Islamic economics is methodologically in capable of exploring the relationship between institutional structure, individual motivation and value change"? You have provided no documentation, no substantiation, not even an illustration of what you are alleging, charging, and condemning. You have named no work in or of Islamic economics to which your charges apply. Have you, at least, read such Islamic economists as, for example, Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi, Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi, Muhammad Abdul Mannan, Khurshid Ahmed, and others? Can you really say in all fairness to these writers on Islamic economics whatever their politics are associations, that your charges can be fairly levelled against their writings. You may not agree with them, or their methods and/or formulations-that, of course, is your privilege-or you may even reject out of hand the whole idea of Islamic economics as sheer non-sense, but in order to find flaws in their work you will, at least, have to be specific as to the methodological incapability of Islamic economics, as such, or the Islamic economic formulations of particular Islamic economist, with regard to this, that or something else. Have you considered the state in, which Western economics, after more than two hundred years of cultivation, is? I could go into a detailed discussion of it, but this paper can be only so long. Let only one evaluation of it suffice, In their influential, and widely used textbook, Ih E J'robjem, Robert L. Heilbroner and James K. Galbraith have written:
Economics is in a state of self-scrutiny, dissatisfied with its established premises, not yet ready to formulate new ones. Indeed, perhaps the search for a new vision of economics, a vision that will highlight new element of reality and suggest new modes of anal is the most pressing economic task of our time, (Revised 8th Edition, 1987, p. 52.)

Under the circumstances, it is all the more imperative that Muslims should attempt to develop "a new vision of economics." If Muslims were to develop a new vision of economics, it is quite possible that, not only will they have an economics of their own, but they might even rescue Western economics itself from its present dead end. But Muslims have to deliver first on their promises and declarations that the Islamic social philosophy has a solution to humankind's problems.

9) Again, Doctor Saheb complains:

Islamic economics is not only theoretically sterile, it is also politically barren."

Comment: With the above charge hung on the wall, as it were, Dr. Javid Ansari offers no explanation, elaboration, or substantiation to back up the charge. Actually, to me he sounds Like the American cowboy, who told his men "Hang 'em high." he gave the terse reply, "Cause I said so." If you have were. Seen the great Western movie "Hang 'em high" with client Eastwood playing the role of the man who was at the end of the rope, you would remember the scene. I sincerely c that Doctor Saheb will give the matter some more thought.

In the theoretic scenes, on recommendation which Dr. Saheb makes is the establishment or  design "Anti-  capitalist economics enterprises which can generate resources with out undermining the religious  virtues... (And which would go with) the growth or consolidation of community based on anti-capitalist economic institutions."

Comment: Well done, Doctor Saheb. But could you not think of a word or phrase, which would describe the positive character of the type of enterprises and institutions you have in mind? You sound like those Americans, whose only counsel is that you be anti-Communist and, so long as you are that, it didn't matter what you became. What havoc this has played with Third World nations, Pakistan for one, is only too painfully known by the people of the nations within that world. You cannot produce good Muslims or beneficent Muslim societies by merely saying that we ought to build anti-capitalist enterprises and institutions, or for that matter, anti-Hindu, anti-Jewish, or anti-something else institutions. You have to articulate a positive vision of society, economy, enterprises, institutions, and even the types of man and woman.

In the end, I want to make a statement. Life is fundamentally and eternally the same everywhere. Like biological necessity, economic necessity presents itself in just the same way to people of all races, religions, and nationalities. What is, however, different is how a given people given their creed, beliefs, values, and philosophy of life try to resolve and solve the economic problem. All societies have to produce the means of human life. it has been quite correctly said that there are only two things in the human scheme of things for whose sake people have to associate with other people. The first is, of course, the need for sexual gratification and the propagation of the human species, and the second is the need for producing the material means of life, which is to say, for earning one's livelihood. Human condition and natural necessity, in case of the one, and economic necessity, in case of the other, oblige human beings to so associate, no matter how little need one human being may have for another in all the rest. Not surprisingly, biological necessity has created the enduring institution of the human family and economic necessity the universal institution of the economic system within which are produced, distributed, exchanged, and con consumed the goods and services, and also within which everyone finds his or her livelihood. Countless systems of economic organization have been tried in human history. Even today there is an endless controversy over which form of economic organization is most efficient, dependable. And just. Some profoundly learned people have also said that, in today's world, the only things worth arguing about are of an economic nature. Be that as it may, the vast majority of people in west entirely convinced that  the most  efficient, productive , dependable, equitable, fair and just, and the natural and universal system of economy organization, production, exchange, distribution, consumption, development, and growth is the capitalistic economic system. The most distinguished economists, Such all time greats as Adam smith, Malthus, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Senior, Jevons, Wicksteed, Marshall, Pigou, Robbins, Keynes-to name only some of the great economic theorists in the English tradition of political economy and economics have times and again assured and re-assured their fellow countrymen and the rest of the world of the universal goodness, beneficence, but, above all, of the immense productivity of what Marx called the capitalistic mode of production." Even the common man or woman in the West knows that it is largely due to capitalism that the people of the West enjoy the highest standard of living, which was un-imaginable before the creation of capitalism some two to three hundred years ago in the West; and is un-imaginable even today in what is called the Third World, where people, a vast majority of them live a subhuman existence. The Second World of Communism too lags far behind the First World in standard of living. Capitalism is therefore no mean achievement in human history. One has only to hear Marx singing lyrics in its praise.

In the West, the major credit for the origins, development, and growth of capitalism is given to Christianity, especially, Protestant Christianity, whose ethic is regarded to have been responsible for the success and universalization of the spirit of capitalism. Capitalism is regarded the crowning achievement of Christianity, and because of it that religion can not be congratulated enough for the inspiration it gave to economic life to organize itself around the ethical and organizational principle of the Protestant ethic. In turn, it is capitalism, which made it possible to bring about and continues to make it possible to sustain the predominance in the world of Western science, technology, power, democracy, values, in situations, products, sports, foods, dress, jokes, forms of entertainment's in a word, the Western way of life and world-view. The west and the capitalists would also like to have us believe that there is no other theory and system of organizing economic life than the capitalistic one. To be part of the modern world, according to the story of the West that it tells us, is to become more and more like the West, not only in economics, but also in all the rest. What Islamic economics aspires to demonstrate, believe it or not, is that there is a better alternative to capitalism. That alternative is the Islamic economic ethic, pliilosophy, and system. A fantastic claim! Perhaps. But I do not think so.

Maybe, it is already too late. Maybe, there is no alternative to the West, as it has been telling us for the last two hundred years. I don't mean politically, but culturally. Let us recall that already in 1954, Daniel lerner claimed in his book the passing of the tradition society that Muslims weren't any longer willing to live by the rolls of their tradition, which, to him, signaled the passing of the traditional society in the middle east. Middle East. Probably, we no longer live under the threat of being militarily and politically colonized. But we all know that the decolonialization of the world has been succeeded by, what has been called quite appropriately, the cultural imperialism of the West and the Western assault at the epistemological roots and cultural foundations of the Islamic culture and psyche. In the strategy of the West, its economic philosophy, theory, and system occupy a central place. It is to meet this challenge that Muslims need an economic philosophy, theory, and system of their own, that is what I take to be the scientific and cultural mission of Islamic Economics. For me, without Islamic economics, Islam is incomplete. To reject one is to reject the other. Finally, we need Islamic economics to put our house in order. As of civil society in general, so of Islamic society, its political economy constitutes its anatomy. To this conviction, I have come to subscribe-hence the indispensability of Islamic economics for me. To speak of the poverty of Islamic economics is to speak of the poverty of Islam. In a way, Dr. Javid Ansaris attack on Islamic economics is aimed at more than Islamic economics itself. It goes beyond it and attacks Islam, per se The two are inseparable. If Islamic economics is poor, Islam cannot but be poor as well. In that case-God forbid! -We can, not only, not lay claim to the unique concept of Islamic economy, but also we cannot lay claim to being a unique culture, except, of course, as a poor culture. We might as well hasten to build Western social, political, economic, and cultural institutions in Muslim societies, we might be well simply rest and relax, go fishing, become playboys, or, better yet, go to sleep. Because if there cannot be, should not be, an Islamic economics, then all our akar phoon (chauvinism) and even militancy against the West should avail little. Also, in that case, we should acknowledge and follow Kamal Ataturk as the most imaginative, creative, and constructive and the greatest leader of recent centuries and our own time. What is more, we ourselves need do no creative thinking of our own. All we need to do is to follow the, lead of the West. In my judgement, we cannot and ought not to do that because no economic philosophy, political economy, and/or economic system will ultimately succeed in Muslim society and culture, or be morally, spiritually, and ideologically satisfying and acceptable to Muslims, whose fundamental conception, paradigm, and theory are not rooted in the Quran and Sunnah, Islamic tradition, and our own sensibilities. As far as I know, Western secularism capitalism, and democracy have not succeeded in Turkey either- the only Muslim country which adopted the policy of Europeanization of society, polity, and economy, along with everything else, by a conscious, deliberate, and legislative choice.

 Islamic economics seeks to create and sustain, in theory and practice, a uniqueness in motivational consciousness, social frame work, planing methodologies, economic techniques, patterns of social and economic relationships, modes of financing, methods of doing business, organizational structures, management philosophy, science of economic ad ministration, income arid wealth distribution schemes, taxation and public finance, fiscal and monetary management and policies, principle of rationality, systems of social security and caring for the unemployed, the handicapped, the widows, the orphans, the sick, the aged, the destitute, and the young, and so on and so forth, which would enable Muslim societies to carry on the processes of production, exchange, distribution, consumption, development, and growth efficiently, justly, and compassionately. This is a very large order. But that is the agenda and the challenge of Islamic economics nevertheless.

To be sure, we do not have a systematized theory of the Islamic economy as of now. Many factors are responsible for it, which include our recent colonial past, the intellectual laziness of Muslims, and the inevitable attraction of things, systems, and ideas of the West. But in a class by itself is the special situation created by the sudden influx of oil money into some of the Muslim countries since the 1970's. While this was a great fortune of these countries especially and of other Muslim countries generally, it was something of a mis-fortune for Islamic economics. All of a sudden, there was the necessity of handling vast sums of money of all nationalities flowing into the treasuries of certain Muslim governments. It required that the banking sector and other financial institutions be created and made operational and capable of handling the new financial wealth. Hence an exclusive emphasis came to be placed on developing a system of "Islamic banking and finance. So the banking sector soon absorbed virtually all the available talent and human resources in the economic profession in the Muslim OPEC countries themselves, but also in such countries as Pakistan. Many young and promising economists, who would have otherwise made some contributions to Islamic economics, became bankers and were soon pre-occupied with the problems and challenges of their daily work in the banking and financial institutions. Actually, they did develop a money and banking and financial theory of a sort, which was presented as "Islamic Economics," but it was a far cry from a genuine Islamic economics. Islamic economic theory, or for that matter, any economic theory, is just not the same as banking. I say "banking and financial theory of a sort" because it was developed in the absence of an Islamic economic theory of both the Islamic macroeconomy as well as the macroeconomy, which both methodologically and analytically is the equivalent of jumping the gun. War Islamic theories of banking and finance developed in the last generation came at an opportunity price..I.e., the neglect of Islamic economics per se which was, should always he, priority number one. The direct result of it is that, whereas there are several books available on Islamic banking, there aren't any on Islamic economics. If that is the "poverty of Islamic economics" Dr. Javid Akbar Ansari has in mind, he has a point. But if he meant to say that Islamic economics per se can be nothing but poor, he is definitely wrong.

By Islamic Economics, I mean the incorporation of those ideas, concepts, and/or precepts of Islam into a systematic theory of the Islamic economy, which have a direct bearing upon and implications for the ordering, organization, and conduct of economic life under Islam at the societal, organizational, institutional, and individual levels of economic motivations, activities, and pursuits. Islam has a number of ideas, concepts, and precepts, which, given its comprehensive view of life, pertain to such departments of economic life as production, exchange, consumption, distribution, savings, investments, lending and borrowing organization of business enterprise, international trade, and the financial organization of the Islamic society. A whole variety of social, moral, ethical, and economic concepts in the Quran and Sunnah impinge upon and constrain and restrain society, organizations, and the individual from engaging in activities in the sphere of economic life. On the other hand, there are a number of things, which the Quran and Sunnah make it obligatory upon the Islamic society, organizations, and the individual to institute in the economic sphere. Thus the teaching of Islam bears heavily upon the functioning of the economic and financial system of the Islamic society both negatively as well as positively. Its fundamental rationale lies in the precept of the Quran that an Islamic society is enjoined both to establish what is good as well as to forbid what is evil in economic life, as, of course, in every other sphere of Muslim life. To say that Islamic society is duty- bound to do so is to empower the chief executive institution of the society, viz., the Islamic state, to require those within its boundaries to comply with the teaching of the Quran and Sunnah. In this sense, economic life and its conduct by organizations, institutions, enterprises, and individuals are placed under the direction and control of the Islamic State. So long as they conduct their economic affairs in accordance with the economic laws of the Islamic State, they are free to pursue their economic activities according to their own rational calculations and material and/or moral incentives. In economics rationality means that an enterprise or individual seeks to try to maximize his or her own individual and personal economic gain of in the form of maximum profit as a producer, utility as a consumer, and wages as a worker. How one does so in an Islamic economic is the subject matter of Islamic economics.