This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 22 October 2014, At: 03:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Islam and Christian–Muslim RelationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cicm20

The Economic Ideas of Muslim Scholarsand Christian Scholastics: Linkages andParallelsAbdul Azim Islahiaa Institute of Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University,Jeddah, Saudi ArabiaPublished online: 09 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Abdul Azim Islahi (2014) The Economic Ideas of Muslim Scholars and ChristianScholastics: Linkages and Parallels, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 25:1, 49-66, DOI:10.1080/09596410.2013.840966

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2013.840966

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Economic Ideas of Muslim Scholars and Christian Scholastics:Linkages and Parallels

Abdul Azim Islahi*

Institute of Islamic Economics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

This article discusses linkages and parallels between economic ideas of Muslim scholars andChristian scholastics with the objective of finding common ground in the history of thesubject that may increase understanding of our traditions, boost cooperation and strengthenthe bonds between our associations. It also aims to provide material that may counteract thedivisive elements in the West-centric thesis that propagates the clash of civilizations. Byway of introduction, it begins with an account of the contexts in which Muslim dialecticiansand European scholastics emerged and the foundations on which they based their work. Itthen traces the links that brought them close to each other and presents a number of caseson which the two traditions have similar views. The article concludes with a note that ethicsand human values were the overriding considerations of both scholastics and Islamicscholars, and that, in spite of enormous changes in economic principles and practices, thisconcern for humanity has not changed. If economics is enriched with these values, they willsurely increase efficiency, justice and stability, leading to harmony and peaceful co-existence.

Keywords: scholastic economics; economic thought in Islam; civilizational dialogue; religionand economics; values-based economics

The present article attempts to discuss linkages and parallels between economic ideas of Muslimscholars and Christian scholastics with the objective of finding common ground in the history ofthe subject that may increase understanding of our traditions, boost cooperation, strengthen thebonds between our associations and promote constructive interaction between civilizations. Italso aims to provide material that may counteract the West-centric forces that propagate theclash of civilizations (Amin 1989; Huntington 1993; Landes 1998). The article thereforefollows a non-West-centric dialogical approach.1 It may be noted that the Arab-Islamicinfluence on Europe in the fields of philosophy, ethics, astronomy and the natural sciences is awell-discussed topic (see, for example Copelston 1972; Daniel 1966, 1975; Durant 1950;Haskins 1943; Landau 1958; Makdisi 1990, 2000; Myers 1964; Raju 2007; Saliba 1994;Sarton 1924–48; Watt 1972). But similar attention has not been given to probing into anysimilar impact on the economic thinking of European scholastics,2 even though the potentialfor Arab economic thought to influence medieval Europe was much greater than that of Arabphilosophy and science.

But before we discuss linkages and parallels between Islamic economics and scholastic ideas,it seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that the basic sources of Islamic economics are theQur’an and Sunna,3 which contain a number of economic teachings and rules. The Qur’angives clear economic guidance regarding trade: it is a legitimate economic practice that shouldbe conducted by mutual consent (Q 2.275; 4.29). It strictly prohibits riba (usury) and makesno distinction between usury and interest (Q 2.276–281; 3.130). The Qur’an makes payment

© 2013 University of Birmingham

*Email: aaislahi@kau.edu.sa

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 2014Vol. 25, No. 1, 49–66, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2013.840966

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

of zakāh (the poor due or growth tax) obligatory for every Muslim who has a certain level ofassets and it describes how the poor due should be dispersed (Q 9.60; 2.270–273). It explainshow booty and the spoils of war should be distributed (Q 8.41; 59.7–9). It presents acomprehensive system of inheritance distribution (Q 4.11–13, 176). It directs that lending andborrowing should be fully documented (Q 2.282–283). It praises moderation in spending (Q25.67), prohibits extravagance (Q 17.27) and condemns miserliness (Q 4.37; 57.24). These aresome of the well-known economic teachings of the Qur’an, and the Sunna provides details forthe implementation of these teachings and adds some others.4

In matters where the Qur’an and the Sunna are silent, the use of reasoning (ijtihād) wasapproved by the Prophet.5 Thus, ijtihād, or creative thinking and analogical reasoning basedon principles derived from the primary sources of Islam, has also been an important sourcein Islamic economics. In the post-revelation period, Muslim scholars offered economicsolutions in new situations through ijtihād. Islam also welcomes local salutary customs andtraditions (called ʿurf) (Khallāf 1968, 89–90), helping devices, and the wisdom (h. ikma) ofother nations (Ibn Māja n.d., vol. 2, 1395). This encouraged Muslims to produce translationsof the Greek intellectual heritage (first–fifth/seventh–eleventh centuries). Translation activitystarted in the first/seventh century, although two centuries passed before its influence wasfully felt among Muslim scholars.6 The accessibility of ancient sciences in Arabic gave afresh lease of life to many important Indian, Persian and Greek works and saved them fromoblivion,7 and in the centuries that followed even facilitated the transfer of Indian andPersian sciences to Europe.8 Bernard Lewis (1982, 221) states: “The great age of Muslimscience was initiated by translations and adaptations of Persian, Indian and, above all, Greekscientific works.”

As a result of this encounter, a new intellectual group emerged, known as h.ukamāʾ orfalāsifa (philosophers) and another group of scholars appeared, called mutakallimūn(dialecticians). While the first group was fascinated by Greek philosophy, the second groupcritically examined the whole body of knowledge and tried to prove the supremacy ofIslamic teachings.

Additions to Greek economic ideas by Muslim scholars

Muslim scholars were not merely adopters or imitators of newly translated foreign sources. Theywrote commentaries and made improvements and additions. In the words of Lewis (1982, 221):“Muslim scientists added greatly to the material transmitted to them, through their own researchesand through practical experiments and observations in fields as diverse as medicine, agriculture,geography and warfare.” Of course, this also included economics.

Greek economics or oikonomia was translated by Muslims as ʿilm tadbīr al-manzil (thescience of household management). It was one of the three branches of Greek philosophy, theother two being ethics (ʿilm al-akhlāq) and politics (ʿilm al-siyāsa). Joseph Spengler (1964,304) observes that Muslim scholars extended this branch of knowledge “far beyond thehousehold, embracing market, price, monetary supply, demand phenomena, and hinting atsome of the macro-economic relations stressed by Lord Keynes”. According to Schumpeter(1997, 60), Greek economic ideas were confined to a few aspects of life, such as “wants andtheir satisfactions”, “economy of self sufficient households”, “division of labour”, “barter” and“money”. “This – presumably the extract from a large literature that has been lost – constitutesthe Greek bequest, so far as economic theory is concerned” (ibid.). Muslim scholars were notconfined to these areas. In addition, they discussed market function and pricing mechanisms,production and distribution problems, the role of government in economics and public finance,poverty eradication and economic development, etc.9

50 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Channels of contact between Muslim East and Christian West

When translation activities started in Europe in the fourth/tenth century (Sezgin 1984, 119),10

Muslim scholars re-exported the new improved intellectual product to the West along withtheir own ideas. With the passage of time, the amount of retranslation work increasedconsiderably, so that the period before the Western Renaissance is termed the “translation age”(Myers 1964, 78).

The transmission of Muslim scholarly thought was not confined to translation work. Anumber of European students travelled to the Islamic seats of learning in Iraq, Syria, Egyptand Andalusia, where they learnt various sciences from their Muslim teachers and on theirreturn to their own countries spread their ideas through their own writings or teaching (Sezgin1984, 128). Many writers have emphasized the role of the crusades in facilitating contactbetween West and East and providing opportunities for the West to benefit from the ideas andinstitutions of the Muslim East. Langholm (1987, 115) says: “The Crusades had opened up theworld; towns and markets were expanding with the growing economies, new commercialtechniques were being introduced.”

Trade and commerce, pilgrimage, oral transmission and diplomatic channels also playedimportant roles. The change in medieval Christianity’s outlook towards trade was amanifestation of the influence of Muslim scholars. Active participation of the East and West intrading activities was one of the channels through which that influence was transmitted. Thiscontact opened up the way for various economic instruments and institutions with Arabicnames to spread into medieval Europe, such as suftaja (bill of exchange), h.awāla (letter ofcredit), funduq (special trading centre), maʿūna (a kind of private bank), sakk (cheque),muh. tasib (mathessep – a term used by the first Latin government of Jerusalem), taʾrīf (tariff),rizq (risk), makhzan (magazine), etc. It is worth noting Kramers’ (1965, 105) statements:

Finally, our commercial vocabulary itself has preserved some very eloquent proofs of the fact thatthere was a time when Islamic trade and trade customs exercised a deep influence on thecommercial development in Christian countries. …One of these trade forms was also the feigned bargain called “mohatra”, which word has also passedfrom Arabic into European languages.11

In the East also, under cover of such a fraudulent device, some merchants lent money at interestand found ways to conceal it, as it did not come directly under the definition and practice ofinterest. In the classical fiqh literature it is known as bayʿ al-ʿīna, in which A sells an article toB on credit for the sum of X + i, which B will pay at future date; at the same time A buysback the article from B for the sum X which he pays to B in cash; the purpose of thedifference, i in the two sums, is obvious – interest (Ibn Taymiyya 1963, 30, 432, 439). If athird party is also involved in this transaction, it is called tawarruq.

The emergence of Christian scholastics and economic consideration

As in the Muslim world, so in Europe, the discovery of this new world of knowledge gave birth toa generation of scholars known as scholastics. They were an outgrowth of Christian monasticteaching circles but had a different approach from them. European scholasticism was theoutcome of a new type of school, where Roman law and Greek philosophy were also studied,in addition to the traditional Christian disciplines. Bell (1980, 43) observes:

Scholasticism, which began early in the twelfth century, represents an orthodoxy in theology andan acceptance of the newly discovered Greek and Moslem philosophy and science, especiallyAristotle’s; it reconciles faith and reason and organizes all knowledge under theology, thesupreme authority.

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Some of the early scholastics were well-versed in Arabic language and works. Guillaume (1965,273) writes of Raymund Martin, who was a contemporary of St Thomas Aquinas (d. 672/1274),that his “knowledge of Arabian authors has probably not been equalled in Europe until moderntimes”. He “perceived the value of Algazel’s [al-Ghazālī’s] Tahafut al-Falasifah or Incoherence ofthe Philosophers, and incorporated a great deal of it, which is polemic against the philosophersand scholastics in Islam, into his Pugio Fidei” (Guillaume 1965, 273).

In the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, Christian scholars faced numerouseconomic challenges because medieval towns were in full commercial expansion; theChurch’s economic involvement increased, and the strengthening of the state requiredenhanced resources. Having no significant teachings on economic matters in their religioussources, the scholastics depended heavily on the newly discovered materials. Starting fromalmost nothing, they developed substantial opinions on economic issues and deviatedwidely from the early Fathers on various matters of economic interest.12 It is an acceptedhistorical fact that “economic thinking” in the Christian world started with the scholasticphilosophers:

There is not to be found in the writers of the early Middle Ages, that is to say from the eighth to thethirteenth centuries, a trace of any attention given to what we at present day would designate economicquestions. (O’Brien 1920, 13)

According to Jourdain (quoted in O’Brien 1920, 14), the greatest lights of theology andphilosophy in the Middle Ages, such as Alcuin, Rabnas, Mauras, Scotus Erigenus, Hincmar,Gerbert, Anselm and Abelard, had not

a single passage to suggest that any of these authors suspected the pursuit of riches, which theydespised, occupied a sufficiently large place in national as well as in individual life, to offer to thephilosopher a subject fruitful in reflections and results.

O’Brien (1920, 14, 15) mentions two causes of “this almost total lack of interest in economicsubjects”. “One was the miserable condition of society”, “almost without industry andcommerce”; the other was the absence of all economic tradition. “Not only had the writings ofthe ancients, who dealt to some extent with the theory of wealth, been destroyed, but the verytraces of their teaching had been long forgotten”.

There is an additional reason for this state of affairs: Christianity traditionally discouragedman’s engagement in economic enterprise. Trade and commerce, until the Middle Ages, wereconsidered sinful, and the urge to earn more was seen as an expression of mere avarice.Gordon (1975, 172) writes: “As late as the year 1078, a church council at Rome issued acanon which affirmed that it was impossible for either merchants or soldiers to carry on theirtrades without sin.” We find opinions on economic subjects, such as “believers should sellwhat they have and give it to poor”, and “They should lend without expecting anything(possibly not even repayment) from it” (Schumpeter 1997, 71).

It is self-evident that no economic theory can be built on such idealistic imperatives. Thus,early Christian scholars did not find a basis or incentive for looking into economic problemsand formulating theories. This attitude accounts for “the great gap”13 from early Christianityup to the middle of the Middle Ages. Lamenting this situation, Schumpeter (1997, 72) writes:

Whatever our sociological diagnosis of the mundane aspects of early Christianity may be, it is clearthat Christian Church did not aim at social reform in any sense other than that of moral reform ofindividual behavior. At no time, even before its victory, which may be roughly dated fromConstantine’s Edict of Milan (313 A.D.), did the Church attempt a frontal attack on the existingsocial system or on any of its more important institutions. It never promised economic paradise or,for that matter any paradise this side of the grave. The how, and why of economic mechanismswere then of no interest either to its leaders or to its writers.

52 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

The impact of Muslim dialecticians on scholastics

It is surprising that, towards the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, a revolutioncame and economic thinking became part and parcel of scholasticism. The question thennaturally arises of what factors led to this radical change and how the scholastics were ableto develop a very large body of economic thought without almost no precedent. Very fewhistorians of economic thought have tried to address this question, and even those whohave proposed an answer have not been able fully to substantiate it. Professor Jacob Vinerremarks:

From the thirteenth century on, after the discovery of Aristotle in the Western world, and especiallyafter the absorption of Aristotelian teaching by Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas, Christianmoral theology became a tremendous synthesis of biblical teaching, church tradition, Greekphilosophy, Roman and Canon Law, and the wisdom and insights of the scholastics themselves.(Viner 1978, 480)

In this statement, “moral theology” refers to scholasticism, and economics was a part of it. Onemay wonder what is new or unique in these elements. Bible teaching, Church tradition, Romanand Canon Law, and even Greek philosophy14 all started long before. Why could such asynthesis not be presented during the Dark Ages? In fact, it was not simply Greek philosophy;it was Greek philosophy in its improved form – with the commentary, addition and expositionof Muslim scholars. Schumpeter is more explicit15 (though he makes only a marginalreference) when he says:

During the twelfth century more complete knowledge of Aristotle’s writings filtered slowly into theintellectual world of western Christianity, partly through Semite mediation, Arab and Jewish.(Schumpeter 1997, 87)Access to Aristotle’s thought immensely facilitated the gigantic task before them, not only inmetaphysics, where they had to break new paths, but also in the physical and social sciences,where they had to start from little or nothing. (88; emphasis added)

Schumpeter (1997, 88) is correct when he says: “I do not assign to the recovery of Aristotle’swritings the role of chief cause of thirteenth century development. Such developments arenever induced solely by an influence from outside”. True, “this phenomenon cannot becausally explained by a lucky discovery of a new volume” of Greek philosophy. There musthave been other factors that affected “the wisdom and insights of the scholastics themselves”and induced them to change the traditional Christian outlook towards the realities of life andthink the way they thought. Of course, this important factor was their contact – whetherexperienced negatively or positively – on various levels with Muslim scholars, through theirwork, trade, travel for education or exploration, war and peace, conquest and defeat, livingtogether and migration, etc.16

Karl Pribram is one of the few Western economists who have openly accepted this. He says:

All relevant writings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) were gradually madeavailable in Latin translation along with various treatises in which Arabian philosophers hadinterpreted Aristotle’s work in light of their own reasoning. Of particular importance forsubsequent development of Western thought was a translation into Latin of the commentaries ofAristotle’s Ethics by the Cordoban philosopher Ibn-Rushd, called Averroes (1126–1198). (Pribram1983, 4)

Pribram (1983, 2) mentions two currents that affected medieval society. The second and “far moreimportant stream started within the body of Scholastic theologians who derived their intellectualarmory from the works of Arabian philosophers”. Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes’) commentary onAristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and Politics became very popular in the West, and these arethe two books in which Aristotle’s views that are of economic interest are found. Because suchan important role was played by Arabic translations in Europe, Karl Pribram (1983, 633 n. 3)

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

raises the question of “how far the Scholastics – as influenced by Arabian philosophers –

misunderstood and misinterpreted the Aristotelian teachings”.The preceding account is not to belittle scholastic contributions to economic thought. Rather, it

seeks to establish that, in the wake of various links between the two cultures, it is no wonder thatwe find so many common ideas and similarities shared by scholastics and Muslim scholars.

Resemblance in content and style

Scholars of medieval philosophy and theology have pointed out various examples of similaritiesand coincidences between the theology of Thomas Aquinas and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Guillaume(1965, 279, 280) remarks: “The resemblances between Averroes and St. Thomas are so numerousthat they must be traceable to something firmer than mere coincidence”, and presents examples tosupport his statement. In many cases, not only was the thinking of scholastics similar to thethought of the newly discovered savants, the Muslim scholars and jurists, but the content andstyle of their works also bore a very close resemblance. For example, Aquinas17 devotes twochapters of his Summa Theologica to the elimination of cheating and usurious practices frombuying and selling (Aquinas 1947, II, Questions 77 and 78). Al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) devotesChapter 3 of the second volume of his Ih. yāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn to business ethics (adab al-maʿāsh)(Ghazālī n.d., vol. 2, 62–80). These two exhibit extensive similarities in the topics they coverand in their contents and spirit. It may be noted that al-Ghazālī’s influence on Aquinas hasbeen documented by many authors.18 Guillaume (1965, 273) states:

“Among Algazel’s work was a treatise on the place of reason as applied to revelation and thetheological dogmas. This work presents many parallels in its arguments and discussions withSumma of St. Thomas, a fact which can hardly have more than one explanation.”

Ghazanfar, a contemporary author, has documented statements by many scholars who admit theinfluence of al-Ghazālī on Aquinas. He has also tried to trace similar statements in Aquinas’Summa Theologica and Abū H. āmid al-Ghazālī’s Ih. yāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn on a few compatibleeconomic topics (Ghazanfar 2003b, 193–203).

Motivated by identical objectives

A comparative study would show that both scholastics and Muslim scholars had similarobjectives with regard to economic activities. The moral character of the human person and ofhis actions was a constant concern of both Muslim scholars and scholastic philosophers.Scholastics stressed economic justice, giving priority to the common good, earning a living inorder to achieve self-reliance and to help the poor, and the elimination of exploitation andhardship from economic life.19 These were the objectives emphasized by Muslim scholars aswell. For instance, Ibn al-Qayyim calls attention to justice as the objective of the Shariʿa:“Anything contrary to justice which turns the matter from blessing and welfare to a curse andan evil, and from wisdom to disutility has nothing to do with the Shariʿa” (Ibn al-Qayyim n.d.,15). He also emphasizes public interest; that is, the good of the majority takes precedence overprivate interests. This is consistent with the spirit of the Shariʿa (Ibn al-Qayyim 1955, 171). Ifindividual owners use property in a manner that violates social welfare, the state may have theright to intervene and even confiscate such property, with proper compensation, if by so doingthe greater good of society will be served (245–246, 254–260). Al-Ghazālī allows additionaltaxes under certain conditions, chief among them being the need for mas.lah. a, or the socialwelfare of the community,20 and Ibn Taymiyya, while aware of the effect of the market forcesof demand and supply in determining prices, points out the possibilities of market

54 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

imperfections that can lead to unjust practices on the part of suppliers; in these circumstances, hewould recommend state intervention to promote the common good.21

Thus, both Muslim scholars and scholastics considered justice, equity, the common good andprotection of the weak as the objectives of various economic teachings and institutions discussedin the two traditions. Both have spoken about the prohibition of usury, protection of the poor andneedy from exploitative prices, adoption of commenda or mud.āraba, sharing risks, acceptance ofjust prices, opposition to administrative price fixing, condemnation of hoarding and monopoly,ban on forestalling, respect for human labour in the context of the acquisition of landedproperty, and issues related to the nature and functions of money. The following sections willdiscuss similarities and parallels on these topics in the two traditions.

Usury: a sin against justice

When prohibiting riba (usury/interest), the Qur’an at the very outset said that it was unjust(z.ulm),

22 but the scholastics only discerned this as late as the sixth/twelfth century and it wasconsidered a great discovery in Western circles. O’Brien (1920, 175) says:

Alexander III (d. 1181) having given much attention to the subject of usury, had come to theconclusion that it was a sin against justice. This recognition of the essential injustice of usurymarked a turning point in the history of the treatment of the subject, and Alexander III seemsentitled to be designated the pioneer of its scientific study.

The practice of usury – robbery or war

Raymond of Penafort (d. 1275) considered usury an act of robbery (Langholm 1987, 132).According to Langholm (1998, 59), Ambrose’s De bono mortis contains the following plainstatement: “If someone takes usury, he commits robbery, he shall not live.” It may be notedthat this would be natural thinking if one knew that Allah and His Prophet had declared waragainst the usurer (cf. Q 2.279).

Reducing loans to get payment in time

Muslim scholars unanimously uphold the principle of decreasing the amount to be returned on thedue date in order to facilitate payment. The Prophet advised one of his Companions to reduce theamount of a loan owed to him and get it back at once (Bukhārī 1987, 124). In one of his opinions,al-Shāfiʿī (150–205/767–820) permitted the reduction of the amount of a loan in order to get itback before the due date (Ibn Rushd 1975, vol. 2, 144). It was made clear that the purpose ofthis was to promote mutual benefit, so that it would not be thought that it was tantamount tousury. The scholastics also thought along the same lines: “If a man wishes to allow a rebate onthe just price in order that he may have his money sooner, he is not guilty of the sin of usury”(O’Brien 1920, 119).

Protection of a needy buyer

The Prophet prohibited selling goods to a needy person in a way that took advantage of his need(called bayʿ al-mud. t.arr; Abū Dāwūd n.d., 255). In another tradition, charging an ignorant personan exorbitant price is considered as usury (Bayhaqī 1999, 541). The purpose of these teachingswas to protect the needy from exploitation. Perhaps it was a similar intention that led Aquinasto liken a needy borrower who takes out a loan with interest to a buyer in need to whomsomething is sold at an exorbitant price (Langholm 1998, 77). In the scholastic tradition also

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

“it was strictly forbidden to raise the price on account of the individual need of the buyer”(O’Brien 1920, 120).

Commenda, collegantia and risk sharing

According to Viner (1978, 35), “trade was treated in biblical texts as being peculiarly associatedwith avarice, riches, and luxury. Here the pagan and biblical traditions had much in common”. Butthe scholastics nevertheless accepted trade as a legitimate occupation. As long as interest was notcharged, scholastics and Islamic sources, as well as the actual practice followed in both traditions,approved carrying out businesses and trade on the basis of partnership, known as commenda inthe West, and mud.āraba in Muslim world. According to Cook (1974, 238), “The beginnings ofthe commenda as an accepted legal category in the Italian mercantile cities may have arisen froman acquaintance with the commercial practice of the Arabs.”

There are many similarities in the various provisions set out in the scholastic and Muslimtexts. Under this partnership, capital was provided by one party, who refrained from takingany direct part in the enterprise, and the other party worked with that capital. The two partiesthen shared the profit on the basis of a predetermined ratio. According to Gray and Thompson(1980, 47), “the medieval doctrine did not condemn investment when investment took theform of a partnership, provided the partner did in fact share the risk of business. Commenda,the original form of partnership, has always been regarded as entirely legitimate”. When bothparties contributed capital and worked together, it was called collegantia or societas by thescholastics (De Roover 1965, 49–50) and in the Islamic system mushāraka or shirkat al-ʿinān.The main characteristic of the two instruments is risk sharing. According to Baldus (d. 802/1400), when there is no shared risk, there is no partnership (O’Brien 1920, 208). And theIslamic rule is also the same: al-ghunm bi-al-ghurm wa-al-ribh. bi-al-d.amān, which means again is associated with [the readiness to bear] the loss, and profit entitlement is tied with[bearing] the risk (Sindī 1986, 255).23 It is worth noting that sometimes Muslims andChristians entered into such enterprises together. Kramers (1965, 103) states that there were“manifold ways in which commercial relations led to close cooperation between Muslims andChristians – e.g. in the form of joint partnership and of commercial treaties”.

The just price

The concept of the just price was a main theme of discussion for both Islamic scholars andscholastics; it is still one of the most discussed topics in scholastic economics and has diverseinterpretations. The idea attracted the attention of the German author Rudolf Kaulla and heexpounded on it in his Theory of the Just Price (originally published in German in 1939 andthen in an English translation by D. Hogg in 1940). He states that “The concept of justumpretium (just price) was first formulated in Rome in view of the necessity of laying downspecial rules for the guidance of magistrates in cases in which they had to pronounce upon thevalue of a commodity or service” (1940, 22), but he does not give any grounds for thisopinion. The economic history of ancient civilizations shows that the idea of regulating priceand ensuring justice in acts of buying and selling was found in many nations, including theHebrews, the Hindus (Haney 1949, 45) and the Greeks (Gray and Thompson 1980, 16–17),but no records of the exact nature and minute details of the practice have survived. Withoutdefining explicitly what a just price is, Aquinas says: “It is sinful to practice fraud for theexpress purpose of selling a thing for more than its just price, in as much as a man deceiveshis neighbour to his loss” (Aquinas 1947, II, Question 77, art. 1). He quotes Cicero as saying:“All deceptions should therefore be eliminated from contracts; the seller should not procure

56 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

someone to bid up, not the buyer someone to bid down the prices” (Aquinas 1947, II, Question77, art. 1). Gordon (1975, 174) infers that “to Aquinas the just price of any commodity is itscurrent market price established in the absence of fraud and monopolistic trading practices”.Schumpeter (1997, 93) also reaches the same conclusion when he says: “St. Thomas was asfar as Aristotle from postulating the existence of a metaphysical or immutable ‘objectivevalue’. His quantitas valoris is not something different from price but it is simply normalcompetitive price.”

As far Islamic tradition is concerned, the Qur’an (e.g. Q. 16.90; 4.58; 5.8; 57.25; 11.85) laysgreat emphasis on justice, and so it was quite natural to apply the principle of justice to marketrelations, especially prices. A just or a fair price (qīmat al-ʿadl) is mentioned in some traditionsof the Prophet Muhammad (Ibn Hanbal n.d., vol. 2, 11, 15, 156; vol. 5, 327). The notion isalso found in two state letters of the fourth Caliph, ʿAlī b. Abī T. ālib (Rād. ī n.d., vol. 3, 110;vol. 5, 342). Since equivalence is the essence of justice, the just price is also referred to byMuslim scholars as the “price of the equivalent (thaman al-mithl)” and in many cases the twoterms are used interchangeably. Ibn Taymiyya (1963, 345) defines the price of the equivalentas the rate at which people sell their goods in a particular time and place. Other passages inhis work H. isba reveal that by the price of the equivalent he means, more precisely, the pricethat is established by the free exercise of market forces – of demand and supply. For instance,describing a change in market prices he writes:

If people are selling their goods in normal ways without any injustice on their part and the price riseseither due to shortage of goods (i.e. decrease in supply) or due to increase in population (i.e. increasein demand), then it is from Allah. In such cases, to force the sellers to sell their goods at a particularprice is a wrongful pressure. (Ibn Taymiyya 1976, 25, 42)

It may be noted that the phrase “in the normal way without injustice on their part” signifies that theprice of the equivalent must be a competitive price and there must be no fraud, because acompetitive market leads to fair prices, and it is only by fraudulent practices that one cancharge higher prices. Thus there is a profound affinity between Ibn Taymiyya’s concept of theprice of the equivalent and that of the just price presented by Aquinas, if we accept that hisjust price was actually the normal competitive price.

Price control

Peter Olivi (d. 697/1298), the author of a much copied treatise on economic contracts, opposedprice control, even when there was a general shortage. He states openly that price controls willmake those with supplies in stock less inclined to part with them, to the detriment of all thosewho need them (Langholm 1987, 117).

Among Muslim scholars, Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī (d. 682/1283), in addition to supporting hisstand on price control by quoting the tradition of the Prophet, analyses price fixing from aneconomic viewpoint and indicates the disadvantage of this kind of price control. He says:

It is obvious that price fixing must lead to dearth and expensiveness. Because, when outside tradershear about price control, they will not bring their goods into that area where they would be forced tosell at a price against their will. And local traders who have the goods will conceal their stocks. Theneedy buyers will demand the goods, and having their demand unsatisfied will bid the price up. Theprice thus will increase and both parties will suffer – the sellers will suffer as they have been restrictedfrom the sale of their goods and the buyers will suffer as their wants have been left unfulfilled. It is forthis reason prohibited. (Maqdisī 1972, 44–45)

This does not mean that all Christian scholastics and Muslim scholars completely opposedadministrative price control altogether. In fact, this has been a very controversial issue andthere are scholars in both traditions who have advocated price control to safeguard the interest

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

of poor buyers. Aquinas asks the authorities to fix prices if a just price is not prevailing in themarket. However, while recommending this, he “recognizes the element of the subjectivevalue of an object to the seller, but he does not take into consideration the element of theobject for the buyer” (Schumpeter 1997, 93).

Among Muslim scholars, Ibn Taymiyya is a strong supporter of administrative price control ifthe market is not functioning properly. He points to certain circumstances that might warrant priceregulation and controls – specifically when there are market imperfections (monopolisticpractices) and/or in national emergencies (such as famine, war, etc.) (Ibn Taymiyya 1976, 24–26). He stresses the need to take into account the subjective value of the good to the buyerwhen introducing administrative price control (for details, see Islahi 1988, 97–101, 244).

Hoarding and forestalling

Hoarding and forestalling (i.e. buying from a merchant en route to the market) were condemnedby scholastics (Gordon 1975, 219–220). In Islamic sources, we find condemnation of hoardingand prohibition of forestalling, known as ih. tikār and talaqqī al-jalab respectively. The Prophetsaid: “The hoarder is committing a wrongdoing and one who brings supply is favoured bylivelihood” (S. anʿānī 1403 AH, 204). Both traditions aimed at protecting the interest of buyersand sellers, promoting the fair exercise of market forces, and preventing monopolies andexploitation.

Prohibition of guilds leading to monopolization

In the interest of the common good, the scholastics opposed attempts by guilds of manufacturersand tradesmen to fix an exploitative price for their goods and services (Gordon 1975, 220). Longago, Ibn Taymiyya (1976, 25–26) also opposed forming the equivalent of manufacturers’ guildson similar grounds and recommended intervention by the authorities in such cases. He said that, ifsellers abstained from selling their goods except at higher than normal prices and at the same timepeople needed those goods, they would be required to sell at the price of the equivalent (25). Incases of monopolies, he recommended price control by the authorities. A monopoly-holdershould not be left completely free, or he would set a price to benefit himself, threateningpeople with injustice (z.ulm) (25–26).

Revival of dead land

The Islamic position is that “One who revives a piece of land [i.e. makes it cultivable] has the rightto own it” (Abū Yūsuf 1392 AH, 70–71). Aquinas held that “the expenditure of labour incultivating an area of land, or occupation of it, can give rise to a just claim of ownership”(Gordon 1975, 182). These opinions not only gave due respect and recognition to labour butalso encouraged the appropriation of land and making it cultivable.

Division of labour

Division of labour is one of the important economic themes commonly treated by Greekphilosophers, Muslim scholars and scholastics. The basis for the division of labour is the samein all traditions, i.e. man needs many things which he cannot produce himself. He needs helpand the cooperation of his brethren, so there must be a division of labour. Aquinas says:

Because many things are necessary to human life, with which one man cannot provide himself, it isnecessary that different things should be done by different people; therefore some are tillers of the soil,some are raisers of cattle, some are builders, and so on; and, because human life does not simply mean

58 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

corporal things, but still more spiritual things, therefore it is necessary that some people should bereleased from the care of attending to temporal matters. This distribution of different officesamongst different people is in accordance with Divine providence. (O’Brien 1920, 141)

Commenting on Plato’s concept of the division of labour, Schumpeter remarks that he does notstress an “increase of efficiency that results from division of labour per se” (Schumpeter 1997,56). Almost all early Muslim thinkers on economic issues argued for the division of labour,emphasizing its efficiency aspect. See, for example, Shaybānī (1986, 75–76); Ghazālī, n.d.,vol. 4, 118–119); Dimashqī (1977, 20–21); Ibn Taymiyya (1976, 79, 116); Ibn Khaldūn (1967,2: 271–272, 286–287), etc. A sample text from al-Ghazālī may serve as a representative viewon the subject.

After describing various functions involved in production of our daily food, al-Ghazālī (n.d.,vol. 4, 118) says: “A single loaf of bread takes its final shape with the help of perhaps morethan a thousand workers.” He argues further by using the example of a needle. “Even thesmall needle becomes useful only after passing through the hands of needle-makers abouttwenty five times, each time going through a different process” (119). One can see howanalogous this is to the classic pin-factory example of Adam Smith (1937, 4–5), when hemakes the same arguments seven centuries later.

Voluntary poverty

Christianity is known to promote monasticism (rahbaniyya), but the scholastics did not approveof it for all. According to Viner (1978, 61):

In the formal exposition of medieval moral theology, the primacy of “spiritual” over “temporal” goodswas always emphasized, and attachment to individual riches was treated as a danger to morals andeven as sin. Voluntary poverty, however, was not recommended or even approved, except for thefew who sought and had an aptitude for perfection.

It may be noted that we find similar views in al-Ghazālī’s writings; he proposes voluntary povertyas a pious ideal for those who wish to live an exclusively spiritual life in this world. However,according to al-Ghazālī (n.d., vol. 4, 95; vol. 2, 64), such people could not be viewed as thenorm in society, and he does not recommend such voluntary poverty for people in general.

On another occasion, he criticizes those who insist upon a subsistence standard of living forpeople generally – such an approach may be suitable only for those pious people who onlyseek the Hereafter; it cannot be prescribed for society as a whole. If it were taken as a generalapproach, it would provide an excuse for rulers to become tyrants and thieves and they wouldforce people to surrender what, in their view, was over and above their needs. Furthermore, itwould lead to problems for the state not only with respect to the collection of this “surplus”but also concerning proper distribution to those judged to be in need (vol. 2, 108).

Earning to help others

The scholastics generally disapproved of engaging in economic pursuits. There is only onepassage in the writings of prominent medieval moral theologians in which clear andunambiguous sanction is given to men striving to raise their social status, and even this issubject to important qualifications as to ultimate motives, etc. (Viner 1978, 65). St Bernardinoof Siena (1380–1444) preferred that a man enrich himself in order to profit his neighbour bynew enterprises, rather than to sit idle for fear of growing too rich (Viner 1978, 64).

This is reminiscent of the views of al-Ghazālī, who identifies three distinct goals of economicactivity, which is not only virtuous for its own sake, but represents part of one’s religious duties.These goals are:

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

1. achievement of self-sufficiency for one’s own survival;2. provision for the well-being of one’s progeny; and3. provision for assisting those in economic need.

Any shortcoming in the pursuit of these goals is religiously “blameworthy”, according to al-Ghazālī (n.d., vol. 2, 63, 269). A man of strong faith, he quotes several sayings of the Prophetand his followers to corroborate his argument.

Spending the surplus

The scholastics recommended giving alms from one’s surplus. Viner (1978, 73) quotes ThomasAquinas:

alms giving is a matter of precept, but that the precept requires alms to be given only out of “surplus,”or “superfluity”… . “Surplus” is explained as what the donor does not need for the time being, “as faras he can judge with probability,” or “according as things probably and generally occur.” … To giveas alms what is needed “if one’s life or the life of those under our charge would endanger,” is“altogether wrong.”

We find similar ideas in al-Ghazālī (n.d., vol. 2, 341). He condemns the person who has a smallamount to support his family but instead of spending it upon them provides feasts for others. Hequotes many verses from the Qur’an to support his views: “Make not thy hand tied (like aniggard’s) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach, so that thou becomeblameworthy and destitute” (Q l7.29); “and squander not (your wealth) in the manner of aspendthrift. Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the evil ones and the evil one is ungrateful tohis Lord” (Q 17.26–27); “Those who when they spend are not extravagant and not niggardly,but hold a just (balance) between these extremes” (Q 25.67). The qur’anic term for surplus isal-ʿafw. It says: “They ask thee how much they are to spend. Say ‘al-ʿafwa’” (Q 2.219).24

Private property

In the Middle Ages, the traditional Christian view of private property, then widely accepted,ascribed its origin to human sin. Tawney (1938, 45) says concerning Christian ideology: “Toseek more is not enterprise, but avarice, and avarice is a deadly sin.” The ideal communitywas one in which no one called anything his own, but everyone had all things common. Afterthe rediscovery of Aristotle by medieval Europe through the medium of Jewish scholars andArab commentators, the concept of private property underwent a drastic change. Aquinas wasthe first to combine a defence of the Aristotelian view with a full discussion and criticism ofthe traditional texts (Aquinas 1947, II: Question 66, art. 2). Private ownership of resourcescoupled with communal use of surplus produce is Aquinas’ programme for the maximizationof total social product and the optimization of its distribution from the viewpoint of economicwelfare. Private ownership is advocated mainly on the ground of higher economic efficiency,while the policy of communal use of property derives from moral imperatives; thus Aquinaswrites: “Feed him that is perishing of hunger; if you fail to do so you are guilty of his death”(II. Question 32, art. 5).

Muslim scholars took the institution of private property for granted to fulfil certain obligations.Those who are deprived should have a share in the property of the rich. Praising obedient servants,theQur’an says: “And those inwhosewealth there is a known right, for the beggarwho asks, and forthe unlucky who has lost his property and wealth (and his means of living has been straitened)” (Q70.24). Thus, one does not find in the works of Muslim scholars any of the arguments Aristotlebrought against Plato’s communism. They believe in the “have-nots” enjoying a share in the

60 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

property of the “haves”. But they differ over the nature and extent of that sharing. For example, IbnTaymiyya (1963, vol. 30, 37–39) recommends various punishments for people who do not meet anobligation in spite of having themeans to do so. According to him, “it is people’s duty to help othersin their need of bread, clothing, and shelter and if they refrain from doing so, the state will step in tocompel them to do so” (vol. 29, 194). If a person has goods and refuses to lend them to one in need,and this refusal causes the death of the latter, he will be held responsible for that death (191). Wehave noted above similar opinion of Aquinas.

Al-Ghazālī, who was more inclined towards Sufism, maintains that the spirit of Islamicbrotherhood should lead to the voluntary sharing of one’s wealth. He refers to three types ofsharing and ranks them in order of their desirability according to the Shariʿa. The lowest stageis when a person considers his brother as his helper or servant and takes it upon himself tohelp his brother in need without waiting to be asked for help. A higher level is to regard hisbrother as himself and permit him to share in his property as though he, too, were the ownerof that property. The highest rank is to prefer the brother’s needs over one’s own needs(Ghazālī n.d., vol. 2, 173).

Money and related issues

Money is a topic that is less discussed by scholastics. Nicole Oresme (d. 784/1382) authored asmall tract on the subject which is considered to be the first scholastic treatise entirely devotedto an economic topic. He discussed the nature and purpose of money, gold and silver assuitable materials for coinage, the negative consequences of the alteration and debasement ofcurrency, and an idea similar to Gresham’s law.25

Much before Oresme, Qudāma b. Jaʿfar (d. 320/932), Ibn Miskawayh, (d. 421/1030), al-Ghazālī, al-Dimashqī (sixth/twelfth century) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328)26 discussed allthese aspects of money in the context of various socio-economic issues. The similaritybetween them and Oresme was partly because both sides benefited from Greek ideas and facedsimilar problems, and partly because of their common concern for commutative justice,facilitation of transactions and checks on cheating and deception in money matters.

Concluding remarks

Such examples of similarities can be multiplied but time and space do not allow us to cover all suchcases, which would require extensive research. The preceding discussion is enough to demonstrateco-constitutive and harmonious interactions between independent civilizations and to prove wrongthe idea that they meet only in head-on conflict. In conclusion, it may be emphasized that, since theera of the scholastics and earlyMuslim scholars, economic principles and practices have undergonedrastic change. Compositions of production and techniques have developed enormously, butman’snature is the same. His conscience, ethics and human values have not changed. These were theoverriding considerations of both scholastics and Muslim scholars and it is this aspect of theirthought that has lessons for us27 that can lessen the danger of a senseless clash of civilizationsand pave the way for exchange and dialogue between West and East on an equal footing.Indeed, through dialogue on the basis of tolerance and mutual respect, shared values becomemore familiar than those that distinguish and divide.

Acknowledgements

This is a revised and improved version of a paper presented to the first monthly forum held at theIslamic Economics Research Centre (now Institute), Jeddah, on May 4, 2011, through video

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

conferencing, organized under the “Chair of Ethics and Norms of Finance”, established atUniversité Paris 1 Panthéon, Sorbonne, France, in collaboration with the King AbdulazizUniversity, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Notes

1. The following works are among those that provide a critique of Huntington’s thesis in a number of ways:Bala 2006, 2009; Blaut 1993; Ghazanfar 2006; Goody 2004; Goonatilake 1998; Hobson 2004.

2. Professor Todd Lowry (2003, xi) observes: “The torchbearers of ancient learning during the medievalperiod were the Muslims, and it was from them that the Renaissance was sparked and theEnlightenment kindled. This has been amply demonstrated in the history of science andmathematics.…What has been generally ignored, however, is the character and sophistication ofArabic writings on economic subjects.”

3. The Sunna is the name given to the method of the Prophet. The term is sometimes used to refer to“Tradition”, i.e. the sayings, actions and recommendations of the Prophet.

4. See, for example, Khan (2005) and Kahf (1999) for the economic teachings in the traditions of theProphet.

5. This source of this rule is a tradition of the Prophet. (See Abū Dāwūd. n.d., vol. 3, 303.)6. The first incidence of translation is reported during the Caliphate of ʿUmar. It was a translation of the tax

register (dīwān), from Persian to Arabic (Ibn Khaldūn n.d., 112). It was an Umayyad prince, Khālidb. Yazīd (48–85/668–704), who began a systematic approach to translation. He sent for scholarsfrom India, Persia, Rome and Greece and arranged for the translation of their classical works. In theyears that followed, political upheavals interrupted this work. Its full-fledged commencement couldbe traced to the Abbasid Caliph al-Maʾmūn (167–218/783–833), who established Bayt al-h. ikma (thehouse of wisdom) specially for this purpose. Greek manuscripts were brought there fromConstantinople and other places to be translated.

7. Many Greek books, such as those of Galen, were saved for the Western world thanks only to Arabictranslations (López-Baralt 1994, 509). Bryson’s so-called Greek original is now lost but survives inan Arabic translation (Heffening 1934, 595), and a Greek version of the Arabic translation ofPtolemy’s Optics has yet to be found (Burnett 1994, 1054 n. 88).

8. The case of Arab/Indian numerals is a living example of this intellectual exchange. Burnett (1994, 509–510) writes: “The so-called Arabic numbers without which Europeans would never have been able todevelop mathematics, were introduced into the West and the Hindu East by the Arabs.”

9. For details, see Islahi (2005, 25–69).10. We have reports regarding translation activities from Arabic to Greek by the end of the fourth/tenth

century in the Byzantine capital Constantinople (Sezgin 1984, 119).11. The origin of this word in Arabic is mukhāt.ara (risk taking). In Egypt the term muʿāmala (deal,

transaction) was more common (Subkī n.d., vol. 1, 327). The practice was widespread in medievalEurope and known as mohatra (Schacht 1936, 1150; Grice-Hutchinson 1978, 48, 49, 59 n. 105).

12. For an account of the scholastics’ deviation from the early Fathers on matters of economic interest, seeViner (1978, 106–111).

13. Joseph Schumpeter (1997, 73–74) speaks of “the great gap” in the evolution and development ofeconomic thought in his monumental work History of Economic Analysis. After discussing Graeco-Roman economic thought, he remarks: “so far as our subject is concerned, we may safely leap over500 years to the epoch of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), whose Summa Theologica in the historyof thought was what the south-western spire of the Cathedral of Chartres is in the history ofarchitecture” (74). In 1987, Mirakhor penned a well-documented paper in which he questioned theSchumpeterian great gap thesis and pointed to the “serious omission in the history of economics ofprofound contribution made by Muslim scholars”. He showed that “both motive and opportunityexisted for the Medieval European scholars to be influenced by the economic ideas and institutionsdeveloped in medieval Islam and that based on the available evidences, they availed themselves ofsuch an opportunity by using some of the available knowledge to advance their ideas” (Mirakhor1987, 249). An echo of this paper was heard at the History of Economics Society Conference inToronto, Canada, June 1988, where Ghazanfar presented his study, “Scholastic Economics and ArabScholars: The Great Gap Thesis Reconsidered” (2003a, 19 n. 1).

14. Greek philosophy was known to Christian scholars in their early period also and never completely diedamong them. Some translations were even made directly from Greek to Latin. The reader may refer to

62 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Gordon (1975, 82–110) to see how Christian fathers reacted to Greek ideas in the early centuries. Thiswas totally different from what they did after discovering them in Muslim commentaries. After provingthat “Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) was available to the West for fifteen centuries [three centuries BCE plustwelve centuries CE], in Greek, in Latin and even in some other tongues, and yet the West was sunk inbarbarism”, al-Djazairi (2005, 97) in his well documented book raises certain questions: “Had he[Aristotle] been the source of all scientific knowledge, why did no awakening take place in Greeceand Byzantium his land of birth and availability respectively? And why did neither today’s Greecenor old Byzantium make the maritime discoveries… if Aristotle was the key? Why… did not theWest understand the earth was round by just reading Aristotle in any century (fifteen of them) beforehe was translated from Arabic? Why did the West wait until Aristotle was discovered in formerlyIslamic lands (Toledo and Sicily) and in translations from Arabic in the 12th century to understandthis? And why did Western Christendom have to discover Aristotle in Arabic to understand all aboutphilosophy, optics, physics, etc.?”

15. Schumpeter (1997) refers only minimally to the role of Muslim scholars in his encyclopaedic workHistory of Economic Analysis (see the footnote on pp. 87–88).

16. Muslim scholars based their ideas on both revealed knowledge and human reason, making them moreamenable to scholastic scholars, so the latter were able to benefit more from the former, as is clear fromthe gap between their voluminous body of thought on economic issues and the virtually non-existentcontribution of their predecessors, who had no access to Arabic sources.

17. St Thomas Aquinas has been called the prince of the scholastics (Haney 1949, 98) and his thoughtinfluenced an epoch (Gray and Thompson 1980, 30). “The teaching of Aquinas upon economicaffairs remained the groundwork of all the later writers until the end of the fifteenth century. Hisopinions on various points were amplified and explained by later authors in more detail than hehimself employed” (O’Brien, 1920, 18).

18. Harris (1959, vol. 2, 40) writes: “Without the influence of Arabian Peripateticism, the theology ofAquinas is as unthinkable as his philosophy.” Copleston, a historian of medieval philosophy,observes: “The fact that Aquinas derived ideas and stimulus from a variety of sources tends tosuggest both that he was an eclectic and that he was lacking in originality. For when we consider thisor that doctrine or theory, it is very often possible to make claims such as, ‘this comes straight fromAristotle’, ‘that has already been said by Avicenna’ or ‘that is obviously a development of anargument used by Maimonides’. In other words, the more we know about Aristotle and about Islamicand Jewish philosophy, as also of course about previous Christian thought, the more we may beinclined to wonder what, if anything is peculiar to Aquinas himself” (Copelston 1972, 181, quoted inMirakhor 1987, 249).

19. With reference to the scholastics, see Viner (1978, 50, 51).20. For details, see Ghazanfar and Islahi (1998, 47).21. For a detailed analysis of Ibn Taymiyya’s views in this regard, see Islahi (1988, 88–102, 1985, 55–56).22. See Q 2.279 “O you who believe! Observe your duty to Allah and give up what remains (due to you)

from the riba, if you are (in truth) believers. And if you do not, then be warned of war (against you) fromAllah and His messenger. And if you repent, then you have your principal (without interest). Wrong notand you shall not be wronged” (my translation).

23. It may be noted that, during the recent financial crisis, many savants saw the cure in risk sharing. In theiropinion, the crisis originated as a result of financial institutions trying to shift the risk to others (Chapra2009, 30).

24. Al-ʿafwa is also translated as “what is beyond ones needs” (See the translation of the verse in ʿAlī 1975,86), or “whatever one can spare” (see the translation of the verse in Asad 1980, 48).

25. For Oresme’s thought on money, see Monroe (1965, 81–102).26. For their views on money, see Qudāma b. Jaʿfar (1981, 434); Ibn Miskawayh (1964, 29, n.d., 110);

Ghazālī (n.d., vol. 2, 73, 92; vol. 4, 114–115); Dimashqī (1977, 21); Ibn Taymiyya (1963, vol. 29,469, 472). It may be noted that Ibn Taymiyya does not think that money should be gold or silver; itis a matter of convention, so other materials can also be used as money provided it has generalacceptance (vol. 19, 250, 251, 248–249).

27. In particular, the recent world financial crisis has clearly shown that some of the main causes of thecatastrophe were the dominance of greed in the market, seeking self-interest and risk-shifting, fraud,absence of governance and lack of transparency – which are condemned by all religions and theirtrue followers. Many economists plead for a return to economics and finance of values such ashonesty, sacrifice, risk sharing, transparency, etc.

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Abū Dāwūd. n.d. Sunan Abī Dāwūd. 3 vols. n.p.: Dār Ih.yāʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya.Abū Yūsuf. 1392 AH. Kitāb al-kharaj. Cairo: Al-Mat.baʿa al-Salafiyya.ʿAlī, ʿAbdullāh Yūsuf. 1975. Text, Translation and Commentary on the Holy Qur’an. Leicester: Islamic

Foundation.Amin, M. S. 1989. Eurocentrism. London: Zed.Aquinas, Thomas. 1947. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

2 vols. New York: Benziger Brothers.Asad, Muhammad. 1980. Translation of the Qur’an. Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus.Bala, A. 2006. The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.Bala, A. 2009. “Eurocentric Roots of the Clash of Civilizations: A Perspective from the History of Science.”

In The Challenge of Eurocentrism, edited by R. K. Kanth, 9–23. New York: Palgrave.Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Ah.mad al-. 1999. Al-sunan al-kubrā. 5 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.Bell, John F. 1980. A History of Economic Thought. 2nd ed. New York: Robert E. Krieger.Blaut, J. M. 1993. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History.

New York: Guilford Press.Bukhārī, Ismʿīl Abū ʿAbdallāh al-. 1987. Al-jāmiʿ al-s.ah. īh. . Cairo: Dār al-Shaʿb.Burnett, Charles. 1994. “The Translating Activity in Medieval Spain.” In The Legacy of Muslim Spain,

edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, 1036–1058. Leiden: Brill.Chapra, Mohammad Umer. 2009. “The Global Financial Crisis: Can Islamic Finance Help?” In Issues in the

International Financial Crisis from an Islamic Perspective, prepared by a group of researchers,Islamic Economic Research Center. 11–18. Jeddah: King Abdulaziz University.

Cook, M. A. 1974. “Economic Developments.” In The Legacy of Islam. 2nd ed, edited by J. Schacht and C.E. Bosworth, 210–243. Oxford: Clarendon.

Copelston, F. G. 1972. A History of Medieval Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.Daniel, Norman. 1966. Islam and the West: The Making of an Image. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Daniel, Norman. 1975. The Arab and Medieval Europe. London: Longmans.De Roover, Raymond. 1965. “The Origin of Trade.” In Cambridge Economic History of Europe, 3 vols,

edited by M. M. Posten, E. E. Rich, and E. Miller, 42–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dimashqī, al-. 1977. In Al-ishāra ilā mah.āsin al-tijāra, edited by al- Shurabjī. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyya

al-Azhariyya.Djazairi, S. E. al-. 2005. The Hidden Debt to Islamic Civilization. Oxford: Bayt al-Hikma Press.Durant, Will. 1950. The Story of Civilization. Vol. 4: The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster.Ghazālī, Abū H. āmid al-. n.d. Ih. yāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Nadwa.Ghazanfar, S. M. 2003a. “Scholastic Economics and Arab Scholars: The Great Gap Thesis Reconsidered.” In

Medieval Islamic Economic Thought: Filling the Great Gap in European Economics, edited by S. M.Ghazanfar, 6–21. London: Routledge Curzon.

Ghazanfar, S. M. 2003b. “The Economic Thought of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali and St Thomas Aquinas: SomeComparative Parallels and Links.” In Medieval Islamic Economic Thought: Filling the Great Gap inEuropean Economics, edited by S. M. Ghazanfar, 184–208. London: Routledge Curzon.

Ghazanfar, S. M., ed. 2006. Islamic Civilization. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Ghazanfar, S. M., and Abdul Azim Islahi. 1998. Economic Thought of al-Ghazali. Jeddah: Scientific

Publishing Centre, King Abdul Aziz University.Goody, J. 2004. Islam in Europe. Cambridge: Polity.Goonatilake, S. 1998. Toward a Global Science: Mining Civilizational Knowledge. New Delhi: Vistaar.Gordon, Barry. 1975. Economic Analysis before Adam Smith. New York: Barnes and Noble.Gray, A., and A. Thompson. 1980. The Development of Economic Doctrine. 2nd ed. New York: Longmans.Grice-Hutchinson, Marjorie. 1978. Early Economic Thought in Spain, 1177–1740. London: George Allen &

Unwin.Guillaume, Alfred. [1931] 1965. “Philosophy and Theology.” In The Legacy of Islam, edited by Thomas S.

Arnold and Alfred Guillaume, 239–285. London: Lowe and Brydone Ltd.Haney, L. H. 1949. History of Economic Thought. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan.Harris, C. R. S. 1959. Duns Scotus. 2 vols. New York: Humanities Press.Haskins, Charles H. 1943. Studies in the History of Medieval Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Heffening, W. 1934. “Tadbir.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 4, 595. Leyden: Brill.Hobson, J. M. 2004. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

64 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations.” Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 22–49.Ibn al-Qayyim. 1955. Iʿlām al-muwaqqiʿīn. 3 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-Saʿāda.Ibn al-Qayyim. n.d. Zād al-maʿād. Cairo: Al-Mat.baʿa al-Mis.riyya.Ibn Hanbal, Ah.mad. n.d. Musnad Ah.mad Ibn H. anbal. 6 vols. n.p.: Al-Maktab al-Islāmī.Ibn Khaldun. 1967. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. 3 vols.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ibn Khaldūn. n.d. Al-muqaddima. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.Ibn Māja. n.d. Sunan. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.Ibn Miskawayh. 1964. Risāla fī mahiyyat al-ʿadl, edited and translated by M. S. Khan. Leiden: Brill.Ibn Miskawayh. n.d. Tahdhib al-akhlāq. Cairo: Al-Mat.baʿa al-Mis.riyya.Ibn Rushd. 1975. Bidāyat al-mujtahid wa-nihāyat al-muqtasid. 2 vols. Cairo: Mus.t.afā al-Bābī al-H. alabī

Press.Ibn Taymiyya. 1963. In Majmūʿ fatāwā Shaykh al-Islām Ah.mad Ibn Taymiyya, edited by ʿAbd al-Rah.mān

b. Muh.ammad al-H. anbalī. 35 vols. Riyadh: Al-Riyād. Press.Ibn Taymiyya. 1976. Al-h. isba fī al-Islām, edited by S. ālih. ʿAzzām. Cairo: Dār al-Shaʿb.Islahi, Abdul Azim. 1985. “Ibn Taimiyah’s Concept of Market Mechanism.” Journal of Research in Islamic

Economics 2 (2): 51–60.Islahi, Abdul Azim. 1988. Economic Concepts of Ibn Taimiyah. Leicester: Islamic Foundation.Islahi, Abdul Azim. 2005. Contributions of Muslim Scholars to Economic Thought and Analysis up to the

9th/15th Century. Jedda: Scientific Publishing Center, King Abdulaziz University.Kahf, Monzer. 1999. Al-nus.ūs. al-iqtis.ādiyya min al-Qurʾān wa-al-Sunna [Economic Texts from the Qur’an

and the Tradition of the Prophet]. Jedda: Markaz al-Nashr al-ʿIlmī, King Abdulaziz University.Kaulla, Rudolf. 1940. Theory of the Just Price. Translated by Robert D. Hogg. London: George Allen and

Unwin.Khallāf, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. 1968. ʿIlm us.ūl al-fiqh [Science of Jurisprudential Rules]. 8th ed. Kuwait: Al-Dār

al-Kuwaytiyya.Khan, Muhammad Akram. 2005. Economic Teachings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Islamabad: Institute

of Policy Studies.Kramers, J. H. [1931] 1965. “Geography and Commerce.” In The Legacy of Islam, edited by S. Thomas

Arnold and Alfred Guillaume. London: Lowe and Brydone Ltd.Landau, Rom. 1958. Arab Contribution to Civilization. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Asian

Studies.Landes, D. S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Langholm, Odd. 1987. “Scholastic Economics.” In Pre-Classical Economic Thought: From the Greeks to

the Scottish Enlightment, edited by S. Todd Lowry, 115–135. Boston, MA: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Langholm, Odd. 1998. The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lewis, Bernard. 1982. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.López-Baralt, Luce. 1994. “The Legacy of Islam in Spanish Literature.” In The Legacy of Muslim Spain,

edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, 505–554. Leiden: Brill.Lowry, S. Todd. 2003. “Foreword.” In Medieval Islamic Economic Thought: Filling the Great Gap in

European Economics, edited by S. M. Ghazanfar, xi–xiii. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.Makdisi, George. 1990. The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West (with special

reference to Scholasticism). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Makdisi, George. 2000. “The Reception of the Model of Islamic Scholastic Culture in the Christian West.” In

Science in Islamic Civilisation, edited by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and Feza Gunergun, 1–18. Istanbul:IRCICA.

Maqdisī, Shams al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Rah.mān b. Muh.ammad Ibn Qudāma al-. 1972. Al-sharh. al-kabīr (printed inthe bottommargin of al-Mughnī byMuwaffaq al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh b. Ah.mad Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī. 4vols). Beirut: Dar al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī.

Mirakhor, Abbas. 1987. “Muslim Scholars and the History of Economics: A Need for Consideration.”American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 4 (2): 245–276.

Monroe, A. E. 1965. Early Economic Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Myers, Eugene A. 1964. Arabic Thought and Western World. New York: Fredrick Ungar.O’Brien, George. 1920. An Essay on Medieval Economic Teaching. London: Longman (repr. 1967).Pribram, Karl. 1983. A History of Economic Reasoning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Qudāma b. Jaʿfar. 1981. Al-kharaj wa-s.ināʿat al-kitāba. Baghdad: Dār al-Rashīd.

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rād. ī, al-Sharīf al-, ed. n.d. Nahj al-balāgha min kalām ʿAlī b. Abī T.ālib, commentary byMuh. ammad ʿAbduh.5 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Istiqāma.

Raju, C. K. 2007. Cultural Foundations of Mathematics (History of Science, Philosophy and Culture inIndian Civilization 10, Pt 4). New Delhi: Pearson Educational.

Saliba, G. 1994. A History of Arabic Astronomy. London: New York University Press.Sanʿānī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-. 1403 AH. Mus.annaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq. 8 vols. Beirut: Al-Maktab al-Islāmī.Sarton, G. 1924–48. Introduction to the History of Science. vol. 3. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute.Schacht, J. 1936. “Riba.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 3, 1150. Leiden: Brill.Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1997. History of Economic Analysis. London: Routledge.Sezgin, Fuat. 1984. Muh.ād.arāt fī tārīkh al-ʿulūm al-ʿArabiyya wa-al-Islāmiyya (Lectures on Arabic and

Islamic Sciences). Frankfort: IGAIW.Shaybānī, Muh.ammad b. H. asan al-. 1986. Al-iktisāb fī al-rizq al-mustat.āb. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.Sindī, Nūr al-Dīn al-. 1986. H. āshiyat al-Sindī ʿala al-Nisāʾī, edited by ʿAbd al-Fattāh. Abū Ghudda. 7 vols.

Aleppo: Maktab al-Mat.būʿāt al-Islāmiyya.Smith, Adam. 1937. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: The Modern

Library.Spengler, Joseph J. 1964. “Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldun.” Comparative Studies in Society and

History 6 (3): 268–306.Subkī, Taqī al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Kāfī al-. n.d. Fatāwā al-Subkī. 2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa.Tawney, R. H. 1938. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Viner, Jacob. 1978. Religious Thought and Economic Society. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Watt, W. Montgomery. 1972. The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

66 A. A. Islahi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

22 2

2 O

ctob

er 2

014