Anjum Altaf

Dear Anjum Altaf Saheb Assalamo Alaikum

Since I started this, I assume your questions are addressed to me, and so I respond to them below.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Anjum Altaf <anjum.altaf@lums.edu.pk> wrote:

This discussion has triggered some questions in my mind:

Where do we stand on academic freedom within universities?

I am most certaintly in favor of academic freedom, subject to the usual responsibilities that are attached to this freedom.

Isn’t preventing academic research based on personal beliefs anti-intellectual?

I have said nothing about PREVENTING research. All are free to follow their own research agendas. My email has two parts.

POINT ONE is a general piece of information, which most of the audience did not possess. Namely, that according to the author and creator of the field, DIVINE Economics was created because "Islamic Economics is constructed over Sunni field of thought and neglects the contributions of the 12 Imams" -- thus Divine Economics is Shia Economics, but the label is misleading and deceptive. The second is that the authors assertion is not true -- Islamic Economics includes both Shia and Sunni scholars

POINT TWO is a letter to Dr. Nisar Hamdani asking him to reconsider his position in the light of the teachings of Islam against creating sects.

Neither of this can be considered to be the prevention of research.

If someone wishes to research Shia economics (if that is what this is), isn’t that their prerogative?

If someone want to study Shia Fiqh positions on economics, I would be happy to read and learn about this research, as long as it is labeled properly -- I just feel that this is part of regular Islamic Economics, as do all the senior scholars in this field.However, I have no objections if they want to create a separate field for this either -- I exercised MY academic freedom in stating that I think this is unnecessary and divisive. The author is free to accept or reject my advice.

What is our stance on Weber’s work on the Protestant work ethic irrespective of its validity or otherwise?

I have cited his work in many of my writings.

Couldn’t some interesting ideas emerge from thinking about Shia economics?

Surely. I could refer you to several books which study interesting differences between Shia and Sunni schools of thought. The most important area where differences abound is Politics, as would be natural. So far, I have not learned of any major economic differences. However, I dont see the need to create a separate field of thought when Islamic Economics already accommodates such topics. I myself was invited to deliver lectures on Islamic Economics at a leading university in Iran dominated by Shia theologians.

Are we afraid of intellectual ferment?

I dont think intellectual ferment has anything to do with the issues under discussion. Misleading labels is one of the issues. The other is a incorrect assertion by the author that the field Islamic Economics does not pay attention to Shia school of thought - this emprically false statement is the basis of the idea that there is need for a separate field.

Why jump to the conclusion that researching Shia economics would divide the Muslim world?

I was just appealing to the author to remain within the existing field, since contrary to his assertion, there is no discrimination against Shias within Islamic Economics. Thus it seems UNNECESSARY -- if there was discrimination against Shia scholars, I would think differently.

If we are against division, why research Islamic economics and divide humanity? Why not stay with economics?

Many of the scholars on this mailing list have written papers on why there is a need for a separation. First, the Islamic approach is dramatically different from conventional approaches in many ways. Let me refer you to my own paper setting out these differences:

Islamic Economics: A Survey of the Literature, downloadable Working Paper #22 from University of Birmingham website:

http://www.religionsanddevelopment.org/index.php?section=47

The introduction clearly explains why I think study of Islamic Economics would contribute to increased mutual understanding, rather than being divisive.

If Islamic economics actually discusses various strands, why assume a false unity? Isn’t that just as euphemistic as ‘divine’ economics?

All intellectual disciplines have their controversies and conflicts, but differences between Keynesian and Monetarists fall within conventional economics as agreed to by both. Different strands of thought remain united within certain foundational principles. Similarly, all who chose to label their work as Islamic Economics consider themselves as being within this umbrella -- there is a foundational unity on acceptance of Islam, which is genuine. Just as divisions among Muslims do not invalidate the idea that all are Muslims -- a section of my survey referred to earlier discusses this idea of unity among differences.

If divine economics is actually a euphemism for Shia economics, isn’t that a comment on the fear of intolerance amongst Muslims?

Tolerance has been amply demonstrated, as many of the comments show -- Sunni scholar are invited to leading Shia universities; Books by Shia Ulema are studied in Sunni universities. In Pakistan, one of our leading scholars in Islamic Economics from Pakistan is Shia -- I recently recommended one of his books for a prize. There are reasons other than fear for euphemisms, but I would not care to speculate on exactly why in this case.

I am interested in the influence of religion on economic, social and psychological behavior and also in the above questions.

In that case, I think you will find many interesting papers on the Birmingham website link given earlier, where a group of researchers studied many angles on the topic of "Religion and Development". In fact, it is a vast area, and the literature is more than can be read by any one person in a lifetime.

With regards,

Anjum Altaf