33

A Note on Islamic Economics

eye on a larger community which is all the more genuine for being structured andarticulated. His center is God, and this is why he refuses to accept human centersinstead, that is, precisely that which consistent centrism, in the form of collectivism,intends to present him with‖ (p. 137). ―.....The right spirit is one which enables us tocombine an overall view with a sense of the particular. On the one hand, we shouldcultivate a universal approach to all intellectual, political, and economic regionalismand nationalism; on the other hand, we should prize variety and independence at alllevels and in all spheres, on the basis of common patrimony of mankind, which isbeyond all levels and spheres‖ (p. 233). On economics, Röpke expresses the view that―economics is no natural science; it is a moral science and as such has to do with manas a spiritual and moral being‖ (p. 234).

Röpke is quoted extensively here to illustrate how some of the concerns of Islamiceconomics is echoed in the writings of the earlier traditional economists. It alsounderlines the appeal made by Professor Salim Rashid and Professor Ali Khan forbroadening the view of Islamic economics at this stage of its progress. See also"Against Mechanism: Protecting Economics from Science‖ by Philip Mirowski,published by Rowan & Littlefield; Totowa, New Jersey, 1988. In an essay by PeterSinger ―Rights and the Market‖ in Justice and Economic Distribution , edited byJohn Arthur and William Shaw, Pentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990,(pp. 198-211), the author argues that what maybe rational for an individual in themarket from an economic point of view can be irrational from a collective point ofview because markets can restrict the options available to individuals and even violatetheir rights. Also useful are the papers, in the same collection of essays, by DavidSchweickett, ―Capitalism, Contribution, and Sacrifice,‖ (pp. 168-181) and ―EfficiencyArguments For and Against the Market‖ by Allen Buchanan, (pp. 184-197) in thesame book.

On economics‘ conception of man and the conflict between various dimension of thisconception see Serge-Christopher Kolm ―Altruism and efficiency‖ in Ethics Vol. 94,October 1983 (pp. 18-65). In this paper, Kolm discusses fallacies of Mandeville, Smith,Pareto, and Rousseau. He concludes this interesting paper by saying that ―civilizedsociety will not blossom unless the twenty-first century learns to abandon the fallaciesof the eighteen. They have played out their ideological role: the individualizationof society; the establishment of the individual as the foundation of legitimacy, botheconomic (private property and free trade) and political (democracy); and ultimately,of certain individual and collective liberties. Logically, the next stage is the liberationof the reciprocal altruistic extension of individuals which is necessary for the completerealization of their liberty‖ (p. 62).

On rationality and self interest: an assertion of Mancur Olson in his The Logic ofCollective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups , Harvard University Press,1965, which came to be known as the ‗zero contribution thesis‘ was that: ―Unlessthe number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or