Introduction: The third session of Islamic Economics at the Imam Muhammad Baqir (AS) Fiqh School, on the topic of “The Relationship between Fiqh and the Science of Economics,” was presented by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Dr. Sayyed Hadi Arabi, Dean of the Faculty of Management and Economics at the University of Qom and author of the books Foundations of Islamic Economics and Money and Banking with an Islamic Approach. The session was held in March 2021 with the attendance of seminarians and scholars. What follows is a detailed report of the topics discussed in this session.
Economics as an Empirical Social Science
Since antiquity, sciences have been classified in various ways based on different foundations. One of the methods of classifying sciences has been classification based on methodology. Sciences were divided into empirical and non-empirical. The non-empirical were divided into deductive (qiyasi), intuitive (dhawqi), and other sciences. Our point of discussion regarding the relationship of fiqh or religion with economics falls under the domain of the empirical sciences.
The empirical sciences can be divided into two categories: one is the natural empirical sciences, such as biology, physics, etc., and the other is the social empirical sciences, which are related to humans and social phenomena, such as economics, sociology, political science, and so on. Therefore, our discussion is in the section of empirical social sciences. We will consider economics as an empirical social science.
The Change in Attitude Towards Science After the Renaissance
Another point is that after the Renaissance, the attitude towards science changed. Before the Renaissance, science was considered a tool for understanding phenomena. After the Renaissance, a relatively significant change occurred, in that science became a tool for wealth and power. This does not mean it is not a tool for understanding, but rather that understanding is not sought for its own sake. If we want to understand a phenomenon, it is so that we can gain the power to control that phenomenon. Therefore, sciences were not sought for their own sake but for the power to control phenomena.
After the Renaissance, the perspective for approaching knowledge was established as: if we understand something, how can it help us bring that phenomenon under our control? For example, if we want to understand an earthquake, it is not just to know the laws governing it, but we want to understand it in such a way that we can control it. In the social sciences, if we want to understand unemployment and inflation, it is so that we can control them and bring about the changes that are desirable for human beings and human life. Therefore, the empirical sciences moved in this direction: if we are to understand a phenomenon, it means we want to describe it and identify the causes of its occurrence so that we can predict and control it, organize it, and change it in ways that benefit humanity and society. For this reason, today the social sciences are called the sciences of societal administration.
So, science is the process of discovering external events “as they are” in order to gain control over them. If we want to control something, we must know it “as it is,” and if we do not know it as it is, we do not gain the power to control it. In a sense, these empirical sciences are a posteriori sciences; a posteriori in the sense that realities and events occur regardless of whether anyone studies them or not. In societies from ancient times to today, people have engaged in production, consumption, saving, and so on, whether anyone studies these events or not. However, the researcher studies them to discover the governing relationships between phenomena “as they are,” to recognize the regularities governing them. If the researcher recognizes these regularities, and recognizes them correctly, they gain the power of control and can manage them. Of course, the fact that these sciences are a posteriori does not mean that science cannot be influential on realities. This is a two-way relationship, because over time, a two-way relationship occurs between knowledge and social phenomena, and this interaction causes those realities in society to change and transform. Economic phenomena have been occurring since ancient times, and the economist wants to study them and discover the regularities governing them.
Categorization of Economic Phenomena
If we want to categorize economic phenomena in a general way, we can say they are divided into two categories: people and the government. We divide people into consumers and producers. These classifications are functional (ḥaythī) classifications, not that they are two groups in essence. In one place, our capacity is that of a consumer, and in another place, we are a producer.
Another category is resources, both natural and non-natural, which people use to conduct economic activity. The third category is institutions, which regulate the relationships among participants—for example, between the people and the government, among consumers, between the people, the government, and resources, etc. For instance, by what mechanism can any individual use these resources? For example, we say that from an Islamic perspective, public resources (anfāl) are at the disposal of the Islamic government. The method of regulation is an institution. Institutions are an important element in economic systems. The outcome of the interaction of institutions, participants, resources, etc., are results that indicate we have a certain amount of production, consumption, unemployment, inflation, and so on. The science of economics studies external phenomena to discover how these things operate. How do they function, and what mechanism governs their operation? Therefore, we want to understand this system and the way this system operates “as it is” in order to gain control over these phenomena and bring them under our management.
Let us mention a point, that there is an important difference between the empirical social sciences and the natural empirical sciences, and that issue concerns the subject of study. The subject of study in the natural sciences does not differ among different societies or different human beings. For example, if a biologist studies the physiology of the body, for instance, how the heart works and what mechanism governs it, in order to gain control over it, this mechanism that this person studies and whose regularities they discover has no relation to whether this heart belongs to a Muslim or a Christian, or an Iranian, or so on. This person can arrive at rules that are almost universal. But in the empirical social sciences, it is not so. The outcome of the study will usually not be universal rules. Therefore, here, the regularities that are discovered, because they are related to human beings and human social relations, and these human social relations are influenced by religion, culture, history, and so on, are not laws that can be generalized across different societies. So, this difference must be noted.
The Degree of Validity of Discovered Laws
Another point is, what is the degree of validity of these discovered laws? In the natural sciences, it is possible to study phenomena and understand the relationships between them under controlled laboratory conditions. For example, to boil water in a laboratory, we keep all conditions constant, such as pressure, the container in which it boils, and so on, in order to isolate the factor we want to study. This is possible in the natural sciences, but it is not possible in the social sciences. For example, an economist wants to investigate that if the government, for instance, wants to impose a ten percent tax on gasoline, by how much will gasoline consumption decrease. Here, all other factors affecting consumption besides price must be kept constant to study it. Many factors are influential, such as the cold or warmth of the weather, the increase or decrease in the number of cars, whether the cars are fuel-injected or not, and so on. If you cannot keep these factors constant, understanding that relationship precisely is not possible. To reduce the problem in some sciences, they use two study groups, but in economics, this is difficult, except in some cases like marketing. But for macroeconomic variables, it is not possible in this way. Here, they use a model, define this model mathematically, and then in simulation software, based on the changes they make in the model, they observe the effects. This mechanism serves as a substitute for a laboratory to aid the researcher.
The Place of Fiqh and Religion in the Science of Economics
If we want to see where, with these explanations, fiqh and religion appear in the science of economics, it is mainly related to the behaviors of humans and social institutions, that is, the participants. The behavior of the participants is influenced by institutions, and institutions derive this behavior from religion, values, history, and so on. The reason why Martyr al-Sadr said that we will have a science of Islamic economics only when a society has been formed based on Islamic values, and then an economist studies this society, studies its economic phenomena, and discovers the relationships between them, is precisely this reason—because you are discussing an empirical science, not a deductive one.
If we want to examine the science of economics as an empirical science, it is just as Martyr al-Sadr said: first, the institutions must take shape, behaviors must take shape and be influenced by Islamic values, and then you study them and discover their regularities. Then you will realize that if the behaviors and social institutions differ significantly from the behaviors of another society, due to culture, religion, and so on, as a rule, the regularity discovered in the other society cannot have predictive power here. For example, if we take an economic system where relationships and exchanges take shape in free markets and we discover a regularity, and there is another system where the mechanism for supply and demand and resource allocation is not price and market—like the former Soviet Union where everything belonged to the state, and whoever worked, the state owned the output, and the state would give coupons according to need and distribute based on that—now, that regularity that existed in the former system has no efficacy here because there is neither a market nor a price.
Suppose insurance, which has a specific mechanism, in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia where the majority are Sunni and most Sunni jurists consider it gambling (qimār) and containing excessive uncertainty (gharar), has had another system defined for it, which is takāful (cooperative insurance). Certainly, when this institution is formed and an economist studies the insurance of that country, if they study it and derive its laws, they will not necessarily be applicable to a non-takāful system. Or, for example, a bank is an institution that may be formed based on the principle of loans (qard). Another example of institutions exists in other countries called “Profit and Loss Sharing” (PLS). The regularities governing the bank and these PLS institutions are different. Therefore, if we in a society like Iran want to use the regularities discovered in other countries, if our institutions have a substantive difference from those institutions, and if the behaviors of our people, for reasons of being influenced by values, differ from the people of those countries, as a rule, those theories will not help us in control and prediction. But if we see that it can provide the same help and can predict and control, this means that our institutions do not have a fundamental difference.
Fiqh must regulate the sphere of relationships between individuals, the regulation of relationships between consumers and producers, and the regulation of the mechanism of economic and social institutions like banks, insurance, and so on. After this is established, when an economist studies these things, the relationships they discover will, to a large extent, be different from the relationships found in conventional institutions. This was the explanation from the perspective of Martyr al-Sadr.
Questions and Answers
The Science of Economics: Function-Oriented or Authority-Oriented?
Question: In some human sciences, including economics, what we need is the effect and result of that science; we want to see its function in society. Whereas in fiqh, we are seeking to obtain authoritative proof (ḥujjah). How can fiqh, whose very nature is this, be applied in a science from which we want a practical result?
Answer: It is correct that in science, we seek results, which we have termed the power of control over phenomena. However, firstly, even there you need a degree of religious authoritative proof. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli says, for example, if you want to consult a physician, you must have reassuring religious authority to undergo a surgical operation, and the doctor must also have religious authority to operate. If the doctor has a probabilistic conjecture or whim but does not have the rationally established confidence that constitutes religious authority, he cannot act. The patient also cannot place himself under the authority of a non-specialist.
Another point is that when fiqh defines the rules in social and human relationships, if the economist does not observe the relationships “as they are,” the law he discovers is erroneous. The economist shows something that is not real and does not give the power to control phenomena. Fiqh shapes the “rails” for individuals’ behaviors, provided that we act according to them. After understanding those “rails,” one can discover the regularities “as they are,” and then in the practical sphere, just like that physician who controls a disease, we too can control it. It is correct that there are two spheres, but they are related to each other. The jurist does not say what factors influence exports, what factors cause inflation, or how insurance risk management works. Rather, the jurist says if insurance is like this, there is no problem from a religious perspective, and defines the rule of action for the insurance company. The economist who studies this sees that within this framework of action, insurance risk management happens in this way, and discovers this regularity that in this framework of action, risk management is like this, and in another framework, it is different. They make a distinction between science and technology, saying science means knowing an external phenomenon “as it is.” Technology is the tools that help us, based on that knowledge, to bring about control and change in the phenomenon. For example, in medicine, science is how the heart works, what its mechanism is, and so on. But technology is the devices that help the physician in diagnosis and treatment, like an X-ray machine. This issue exists in the social sciences, but another issue that exists in the social sciences is that the boundary between science and technology overlaps. For example, in banking matters, things like deposits, checks, bonds, financing, stock certificates, etc., are tools, but because they are intertwined with economic behaviors, you do not distinguish between the tool and the science. That is, all economists who discuss stock markets look at those stocks, while they are technology, as a science because they are interconnected. And fiqh has a high role in the field of tools, products, and technologies in the sphere of social sciences. Suppose regarding insurance, which we said is takāful in countries like Indonesia; takāful is not a science, but its subject is so related to the phenomena of risk and so on that in the social sciences, a distinction is not usually made between science and technology as in the natural sciences, and their distinction is difficult.
Societal Need: Islamic or Liberal Economics?
Question: With your explanation, it seems we do not need Islamic economics, and we can apply the rules that exist in liberal economics to our own society? You said that the understanding of economic relationships takes shape in a context, which may be defined based on fiqh and religion, or it may be defined based on a liberal society. So we can use that same economics and do not need to change its nature.
Answer: No, it is not like that. The empirical social sciences are a collection of theories that take shape around a subject and issues related to that subject, which want to describe, explain, and predict the various dimensions of this phenomenon, and then give us the power to make policy, control, and plan. These theories are a collection of concepts, models, and relationships within the models. A series of concepts are common in every science, and a series of concepts are not common and are specific concepts. To show the role of concepts in theories, let’s give some examples. You must be aware that when we say the science of Islamic economics, this is not a science separate from the science of economics; it is the science of economics, but there is a branch called the science of Islamic economics. In nature, they are not two different things, but there are differences in the subject of study here and the models and their relationships, which makes us say this case is Islamic economics and that case is conventional economics. Just as within Western economics itself, there are different economic schools of thought. For example, there is liberal economics, there is free-market liberal economics, there is institutional economics, there is structural economics, and so on. These are different schools of thought in the science of economics that are rivals to each other. In Islam, it is not so that we have a single, unique economic science, but different schools of thought will emerge. It is true that we say science means conformity with reality, and reality is one. So how can science be two? This is due to the deficiency of our understanding. If we look from the perspective of God Almighty, science is one and not two, but we analyze the phenomenon with our own understanding. Consequently, it is not the case that even if we have an Islamic economics, we will have a single, unique Islamic economics.
What is Islamic Economics?
Question: What is meant by the science of Islamic economics? Is the meaning an economics that is implemented in an Islamic society, or is the meaning that we have studied Islamic texts and derived the science of economics from them? This economics that you speak of means an economics that has been derived from the context of an Islamic society and has no relation to religion.
Answer: We mean both. We have an a posteriori Islamic economics, which is what you said, meaning an economics that exists in the context of an Islamic society, which Martyr al-Sadr spoke of. But there is an Islamic economics that was your other interpretation, which is the derivation from religious texts; we have this too, and this is in fact deductive (qiyasi).
Therefore, it is not so that we have a single, unified interpretation of Islamic economics. To see how religion and values enter this science, whether in an a posteriori or a priori manner, it is in the way that we said different theories make up the science.
Economics: A Knowing Agent or a Creating Agent?
Question: Is economics a knowing agent (fā’il-i shināsā) or an agent that creates (fā’il-i mūjid)? For example, in the Soviet Union, was economics not a knowing agent but an agent that created the phenomenon in this way?
Answer: “Economics” in Persian is a homonym (mushtarak lafẓī); it is said for both the science of economics and the economic system that exists externally, which the master of the science of economics wants to know. Because one word is used for both, it becomes problematic. The Soviet market system is the external economy, and the knowing agent that discovers it is the science of economics. In English, they have two different words: they call the science of economics “economics” and the external activities “economy.” Therefore, it is correct that you yourself define the rules, but if these rules that you define are approved by Islam, the economist discovers its rules and says this is an Islamic regularity. What is discovered is the science of economics, and the framework is those same institutions. Those regularities that are discovered are called the science of economics.
The collection of theories that becomes the science of economics is a collection of concepts, relationships, and models. To see how these concepts play a role and whether these concepts can originate from a school of thought or not, let’s give an example. Theories have been proposed about growth and development. One of the theories says that underdevelopment stems from the fact that in undeveloped societies, capital was scarce. And capital is that same monetary capital that is converted into machinery, facilities, and so on. This view has used the concept of physical capital to explain underdevelopment. This theory must be tested by trial and experience. Another person says capital is important, but human capital is important, not monetary capital. There must be skilled humans to create development, and monetary capital cannot do this without specialized humans. Therefore, this is a theory. Another person says social capital is more important than these, and if it does not exist, society will not develop. Social capital includes things like trust and other elements that create social cohesion. Another person says the source of underdevelopment is not capital but relations of domination. Strong countries impose domination on weak countries and do not allow them to develop. You might say in Islamic economics, in the noble verse we have, “And if only the people of the cities had believed and feared Allah, We would have opened upon them blessings from the heaven and the earth,” [Surah Al-A’raf, 7:96] meaning faith and piety can be the source of growth and development. This is a concept you have obtained, but to bring this concept into the science of economics, you must convert it into indicators that give you the ability to control phenomena; otherwise, faith and piety in a general form may not give you anything. You must provide an indicator for piety and an indicator for faith that can enable you to control phenomena. This was in the sphere of concepts.
In the sphere of relationships, we say relationships are very complex, and if we want to see them as they are, it is almost impossible. It is like having a camera that reflects all parts, which it cannot. A camera abstracts this reality into a smaller, abstract reality called an equivalent, like a scale model. Just as an engineer, if he wants to build a building, first prepares a scale model of it. In social relations too, when a person wants to know a phenomenon with all its various dimensions, to make it knowable, he must convert it into a scale model that does not reflect everything, but is not so abstract that it does not give predictive power. This scale model is not a perfect copy, but it does not deviate so much that it does not provide the capability for understanding and policymaking. This model is that same reality scaled down, and in this model, there are relationships. A series of relationships are definitional, meaning the researcher defines them. An economist might say, based on Islamic teachings, that this relationship must be changed.
We have a series of technical relationships that are not much debated, although they are influenced; for example, in an agricultural field with existing technology, what combination of labor and capital yields how much product.
The third, which is very important, is institutional relationships. For example, the type of tax the government collects is an institutional relationship. In one society, the government collects a lump-sum tax, which itself has a relationship. An institutional relationship is when the government has said, for example, based on how much income this person has, his tax is different. Or they might collect other taxes besides income tax. Now, in an Islamic society, if we have Islamic taxes, we must write economics based on them, and these taxes have come from values. If Islamic taxes have not been established, a researcher of Islamic economics can design it such that if Islamic taxes were to govern a society, the institutional relationship of tax in Islamic economics would be like this. These relationships are derived from religious teachings. We also have more complex institutional relationships that go back to social institutions and the relationships that govern within them, like the institutions of banking, insurance, and so on. If in a society these are formed based on religious values, and the economist studies them, in reality, his job is to discover religious relationships. If they are not formed based on Islamic values, but are examined deductively, and we say, let’s suppose we want to offer something called insurance in an Islamic society based on Islam, how should we offer it? We design this and then discover its laws deductively; this is also Islamic economics, which is called deductive (qiyasi). (This is the same as the second option that was mentioned above, which the professor said he would explain later. –Rapporteur). In reality, based on the classification of deductive sciences, these cases are called “designed based on axioms/postulates” (usul mawdu’ah). For example, Euclidean geometry is formed based on five postulates: point, plane, volume, etc. Based on these five postulates, a geometry has been formed with thousands of theorems called Euclidean geometry. Alongside this geometry, another postulate has been introduced, and a new geometry has been formed. In the same way, in Islamic economics, without a society having been formed, one can discover rules based on postulates taken from fiqh.
Most important of all are behavioral relationships. Behavioral relationships and institutional relationships are the essence of the difference between Islamic economics and conventional economics. Behavioral relationships mean how I, as a Muslim, behave. Suppose I, as a Muslim, am committed not to take a loan with an excess (interest). Therefore, a religious teaching shapes my behavior regarding the supply and demand for money in this way. In this case, the factor that predicts the behavior of a Muslim is different from the factor that examines the supply and demand behavior of another individual in a Western society. Therefore, these behavioral relationships, which are a reflection of rules, values, and so on, are among the points that affect a part of the body of sciences.
The Influence of Islam on the Science of Economics
Question: Is the influence of Islam on this economics not in a way that we can call it Islamic economics?
Answer: Those who say Islamic economics do not mean to say that Islamic economics is that which is in the Preserved Tablet (lawḥ maḥfūẓ). Furthermore, when we say Islamic philosophy, does it mean it is extracted from the Preserved Tablet? No, rather we say the thought of philosophers, in cases where they have not erred, is from those teachings. It is clear that the philosophy of Islam is different from the philosophy of the West.
Question: In the sense that we have narrations that would give us a model of discovery, we do not have an Islamic economics?
Answer: In that book that was introduced, there are some views that completely deny Islamic economics or Islamic sociology, and so on. They say this is because the foundation of a science is its method, and since in the process you delineate as Islamic economics, its method is the same as the other—both are empirical methods—then both are one. So we do not have Islamic economics because of the lack of a difference in method. But the defenders of Islamic economics say our claim is not that what we call the science of economics fundamentally follows different methods, although in some cases we do use other methods, for example, to bring in faith and piety from somewhere else. The opponents say, in the end, we have to do trial and error, and this case is the same as conventional economics. The defenders say, in the end, if we find theories derived from religion, we can govern society better, and this is sufficient.
Islamic or Western Economics, Is It a Verbal Dispute?
Question: The denier of Islamic economics does not say to implement Western economics, but says to implement an economics suitable for your own country. So the dispute is verbal.
Answer: The dispute is not very verbal, but verbal disputes exist in the arguments, but it is not so that it is completely verbal. In any case, the defenders say it is not a problem if the method is the same, but if we do not have these theories derived from religion now, can we govern society better, or when we have them? If theories derived [from religion] help us in policymaking, it is better, and this is what we want.
The deniers and those who say the discussion of Islamic economics is entirely verbal say science is the discovery of external reality. You say, “I saw here that faith and piety are like this,” and I discovered it. The opponents say the outcome of your theory is a conditional proposition; therefore, if people are like this—meaning in the same way they are in an Islamic society—then this thing will happen. Now, what if this same conditional proposition happens in America? So if we take the outcome of your theory as a conditional proposition, it is universal; if its antecedent is present, its consequent follows, and if not, its consequent does not follow. So science is in nature one thing, and what you call Islamic economics is an “if-then.” If this same “if” takes shape in a disbelieving society, the “then” will follow. At the same time, the proponents say, what benefit is gained from calling it Islamic economics, and what harm is caused? If no harm is incurred, and its elimination does not bring us any benefit, why not use this term? Furthermore, it both has benefits, and not paying attention to it may have harms and losses for us.
Islamic Economics or Basing a Science on a Presumption?
Question: You said that in concepts, we can use religious sources. In the same example you gave, for instance, the verse indicates that faith and piety lead to economic growth. It might be said that this is an “appearance” (ẓuhūr), and an appearance is probabilistic/presumptive (ẓannī), whereas we want to base a collection of issues on a presumption and a conjecture?
Answer: Dr. Baqeri has stated this issue in the book The Identity of Religious Science. When we say if faith and piety increase, such-and-such will happen, it is a hypothesis that we have deduced from a religious text. If in the arena of trial and error it does not turn out to be correct, the verse is not invalidated, but my hypothesis is invalidated. I measured faith in such a way that my measurement was not correct. So the falsification pertains to my test, not to the religious teaching. In any case, if we want to take something from religion in the sphere of social sciences, we take it in this way, and in this manner, it is either successful and continues, or it is completed.
Another point is that Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, in the book The Station of Reason in the Geometry of Religious Knowledge, says religious science does not mean we have taken everything from the Book and the Sunnah, but rather if we have taken it from reason that brings rationally established confidence, because reason is one of the religious sources, it is an authoritative proof (ḥujjah), and we can say it is a religious science. He says it is possible some of our jurisprudential evidence is not very strong and we do not reach certainty, and we issue a fatwa based on a presumption that is authoritative. He says in this sphere too, it is the same. Based on this reassuring presumption, it can be said this is Islamic economics because the confidence stems from a judgment of reason, which is from Islamic sources, just as in fiqh we use this judgment of reason that brings rationally established confidence. The criterion is authoritative proof, and with the existence of authoritative proof, one can make the attribution.
Another point is that when we speak of Islamic economics as a science, it is certainly not a single, unique thing, and different schools of thought will take shape. For example, in theology (kalam), philosophy, and so on, how many different schools of thought we have; here too, it is the same, and even more so, because it is related to external phenomena that are not under your control.
Another point is that for various reasons, we should not have the impression that we have a single, unique economic system. Just as Islam has levels (dhū marātib), the system that is derived from it also has levels. For example, you call the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) a Muslim, and you also call a certain sinner a Muslim. A society composed of Salmans is very different from a society composed of a number of sinful Muslims, despite both being Islamic. They are different in behavioral relationships. In institution-building, an Islamic society that is weak in terms of intellectual creativity will have a very simple institution, and an Islamic society that is intellectually strong will build a stronger institution. Furthermore, institutions are also subject to conditions and time. So the Islamic system we speak of has levels. Therefore, sometimes we say this system we have in the banks is not Islamic, but it should not be said like that; rather, it should be said it is not completely Islamic, because of its multi-leveled nature. To approximate this multi-leveled nature, we can use the example of the Islamic government of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). If all members of society were like Abu Dharr and Salman, how different would the outcome of that Islamic government be from the Islamic government we currently see in history? It would be very different, but we call this one Islamic too. That is perfection, and this is a weak level.
Introduction to Books Relevant to the Session’s Topic
A good book that has collected different opinions and views, and is almost a collection of different perspectives, is the book Religious Science: Views and Considerations. This book is written by Hujjat al-Islam Dr. Hassani, Dr. Mousavi, and Mr. Alipour. In this book, the views of numerous authors on how science can be religious and what kind of relationship can be established between science and religion have been reviewed. Among the authors whose views are expressed is Dr. Saeed Zibakalam. The views of Dr. Golshani, Dr. Khosrow Baqeri, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, Dr. Ali Pouya, Mostafa Malekian, Mirbagheri, and others are expressed in this book. This book has been composed with a philosophical and methodological perspective and is not discussed with a focus on economics, and the views are discussed in a general manner, except for the view of Dr. Baqeri, which is to some extent based on psychology.
Source: Ijtihad Network.