Introduction

Although emerging fields of jurisprudence may often appear underdeveloped, Islamic economic jurisprudence, backed by over a thousand years of jurists’ engagement with economic matters, enjoys considerable depth and richness. As such, achieving a significant global presence for Islamic economic jurisprudence is not an unattainable goal. However, Dr. Mohammad Javad Tavakoli believes that changes in the approach and methodology of economic jurisprudence are necessary to realize this ambition. An assistant professor in the Economics Department at the Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute, holding a Ph.D. in the philosophy of economics from Erasmus University Rotterdam, Dr. Tavakoli discusses the requirements for Islamic economic jurisprudence to establish a robust international presence in an exclusive interview with Contemporary Jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does Islamic economic jurisprudence have competitive advantages that are comprehensible in the modern world, enabling it to establish a presence on the international stage?

Tavakoli: Regardless of the distinctions that can be made between economic jurisprudence and Islamic economics, we can address this question by noting that Islamic economics has at least two significant capacities for presenting itself globally:

First, the transcendent perspective that Islam offers on economics, which frames it as a spiritual and ethical economy. In Islam, the economy is not an end but a means for individuals to achieve their ultimate perfection. The Islamic approach views the purpose of human creation as attaining the station of divine vicegerency, striving to become godlike. Thus, Islamic economics is an ethical and spiritual economy, distinct from the naturalistic market economy that emerged in the West after the Renaissance in the 18th century, gradually severing its ties with religion and ethics.

When examining the history of Western economics, we see that before Adam Smith and the classical school, as well as the physiocrats and naturalists, economics was religious. For instance, around 1250 CE, figures like Saint Thomas Aquinas developed a synthesis of philosophy and Christian economics. At that time, religion still held relevance. However, from the 1500s, with the advent of the Renaissance and the emergence of the Protestant Church in opposition to the Catholic Church, a gradual secularization of economics took place.

Previously, economists viewed divine providence as the organizing force of the economy, but this perspective shifted toward a naturalistic approach. Initially, discussions centered on natural religion and natural rights, followed by the concept of natural order in economics. Over time, religion was sidelined, and ethics was gradually marginalized, giving way to a utilitarian and profit-driven approach. This resulted in the concept of the “economic man,” a being solely pursuing maximum worldly profit and utility.

This shift caused severe consequences for the economy. Later, scholars working in the field of ethics and economics recognized that the removal of ethics from economics led to significant damages, including environmental destruction, the promotion of injustice, and, during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, severe exploitation of the working class. Even today, despite progress, we observe highly unjust distributions of wealth and income globally, both between countries and among people within nations.

Thus, Islam’s transcendent perspective, which leverages the capacities of religion, spirituality, and ethics, represents a significant offering on the international stage. A prominent example is Islamic banking based on the Profit and Loss Sharing (PLS) model, which is now globally recognized and sought after. This model mitigates economic volatility and reduces the likelihood of financial crises. Numerous books on this topic have been published in Latin-based languages. Although our implementation of Islamic banking has not been entirely successful, the model itself is robust, scientific, and practical, attracting considerable interest even among non-Muslim economists.

Another competitive capacity of Islamic economics on the global stage is its ability to revive the discourse of justice. Justice is a central pillar of Islamic economics. In his book Iqtisaduna (Our Economics), Martyr Sadr identifies justice as the distinguishing factor between Islamic economics and other economic schools. He advocates a people-centric approach, emphasizing that wealth accumulation should not disrupt social balance. He then introduces Islam’s theory of post-production distribution and income redistribution, which, grounded in a theory of economic justice, offers a novel contribution to global economics that can be presented internationally.

After World War II, Islamic economics was largely sidelined due to a lack of distributive justice. During post-war reconstruction negotiations, the United States established unjust institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, imposing unfair global rules and establishing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Although John Maynard Keynes, representing the UK, opposed this policy, the U.S., being geographically distant from the war’s devastation, insisted that the dollar become the global currency in exchange for aiding Europe’s reconstruction. This created immense economic advantages for the U.S. over the past 80 years, allowing it to print unsupported dollars and export inflation globally. Some argue that without this global dominance of the dollar, the U.S. would have faced at least 200% inflation. [1]

The concept of de-dollarization, proposed by the Supreme Leader, is a practical manifestation of the justice discourse, and I hope it comes to fruition with the participation of other countries worldwide.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the distinguishing features of Islamic economic jurisprudence compared to other religions and denominations?

Tavakoli: Regarding the history of economic thought, we can note that before the birth of Christ, we had the Greek household economy with figures like Plato and Aristotle around 300–400 BCE. Later, early Islamic economics emerged around 622 CE. According to some economists, like Jean-Pierre, no clear economic thought was presented in the West before Christian economics was developed by figures like Thomas Aquinas around 1250 CE. Christian economics, as developed by Aquinas, drew on the contributions of Muslim philosophers like Ibn Rushd and Farabi, creating a synthesis of Christian economic thought and Greek philosophy. However, this synthesis eventually led to challenges for Christian economics.

Initially, Christian economics prohibited usury, but over time, it became tainted by it, eventually permitting the giving and taking of interest. Some argue this shift occurred because church authorities held power during the discovery of the Americas, when large amounts of gold flowed into Europe. This wealth, controlled by church leaders, necessitated lending with interest, leading to the gradual promotion of usury. Consequently, Christian economics lost its influence, and by around 1750, it gave way to mercantilist, naturalist, or naturalistic economic approaches. Adam Smith then established classical economics, which adopted a naturalistic perspective, aiming to make economics a science akin to physics or mechanics, largely detached from the church and religion. Ethics was also sidelined, and economic teachings drifted far from religious principles.

In contrast, Islamic economic jurisprudence, particularly in the Shiite tradition, remains firmly rooted in Islamic principles. As a rule-based and systematic jurisprudence, it neither succumbs to stagnation nor falls into destructive analogical reasoning (qiyas). It avoids the extreme rationalism that permits everything, as seen in Christian economics with usury, while also remaining responsive to societal changes.

Thus, Islamic economic jurisprudence maintains its identity and authenticity compared to other religions. However, among some Sunni communities, deviations from the core principles of Islamic economic jurisprudence are observed. For instance, in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, a form of superficiality has emerged, such as using usury loopholes (hiyal riba) to effectively permit conventional banking. Similarly, in capital markets, Western methods have been superficially “Islamicized,” resulting in practices that differ little from Western economic approaches.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: To enhance the global presence of Islamic economic jurisprudence, are changes in approach, methodology, or rules and evidence necessary?

Tavakoli: To stay relevant and leverage the capacities of Islamic economic jurisprudence globally, we need at least two changes: one in approach and another in methodology.

The change in approach involves moving from individual jurisprudence to governmental or sovereign jurisprudence. Our individual jurisprudence primarily addresses the obligations of non-ruling individuals, often lacking a social dimension. It views individuals as societal elements with minimal social responsibilities. Moreover, our jurisprudence has often not been governmental. This is likely because, throughout Shiite history, we rarely held political power. Apart from the brief period of the Prophet’s and Imam Ali’s (peace be upon them) leadership, governance was typically in the hands of Sunni caliphs who did not consult Shiite jurists. In contrast, Sunni jurists, being advisors to caliphs, produced jurisprudential works, such as Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj, which reflects his role as a consultant to rulers.

However, there are instances in Shiite history where jurists engaged in governance. During the Safavid era, starting around 1500 CE, Shiite scholars from Jabal Amil were summoned and consulted. Similarly, during the Qajar era, around 1900 CE, scholars like Aqa Najafi in Isfahan confronted British colonialism by establishing the Islamic Company. A notable statement by Isfahan scholars, including Ayatollah Modarres and the late Aqa Najafi, around 1906, declared that they would neither pray over a body shrouded in British fabric nor wear clothes made of such fabric, effectively