"Islamic Economics" should derive from Islam, not from "Economics"

"... We are just now: modifying Neoclassical Economics to be "sharia-compliant"

Question: Give your critical opinion on this idea: "that Islamic Economics should be directly derived or developed from Islam, not from (classical and neoclassical) economics as it currently develops."

AI Answer: The idea that Islamic Economics should be "directly derived from Islam" sounds bold—even tempting—because it promises normative purity. However, caution is needed at this point: religion provides principles, not automatically a ready-to-use economic operational model.

The tradition of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh Muamalah) is indeed rich in norms (justice, prohibition of usury, honesty, distribution), but it did not emerge as an economic theory in the modern sense that explains market behavior, price formation, or macroeconomic dynamics. Therefore, if "directly derived" is interpreted as building a complete economic system without dialogue with economics, the risk is that it will produce a strong normative framework but a thin analysis.

On the other hand, an approach that The current development—namely, modifying Neoclassical Economics to be “Sharia-compliant”—is also not without problems. Many practices are ultimately cosmetic: replacing interest-based instruments with contracts that are formally different, but economically often produce similar incentives. This criticism has long been present in the literature, including from thinkers such as Muhammad Umer Chapra and Mahmoud A. El-Gamal, who highlight its formalist tendencies and lack of conceptual breakthroughs. Therefore, simply importing an old framework and “Islamizing” it is clearly insufficient—and even risks obscuring the very ethical objectives it seeks to uphold.

The main problem is actually an overly simplistic dichotomy: as if there are only two options—purely derived from religious texts or entirely derived from conventional economics. In fact, the two have different domains. Religion provides normative direction (what should be), while economics—as an empirical discipline—helps explain how the system works (what happens). Breaking off dialogue with modern economics means losing the analytical tools to understand behavior, incentives, and policy consequences. Conversely, ignoring Islamic normative principles means losing an ethical compass. Unifying the two is not a weak compromise, but rather a methodological necessity.

A more promising approach is to build an Islamic economic system. As an interdisciplinary framework, starting from basic principles (maqasid, justice, sustainability), then developing models and policies by utilizing—and, where necessary, correcting—tools from modern economics (including Institutional Economics and Behavioral Economics). Here, "derived from Islam" does not mean rejecting other sciences, but rather defining their direction and limits. This also opens up space for innovation: not simply avoiding usury, but designing institutions that genuinely improve distribution, reduce excess speculation, and strengthen the real economy.

Therefore, this argument has some validity as a critique of over-reliance on old frameworks. However, if taken too far, it risks falling into an inoperable idealism. The challenge is not to choose one source over another, but to build an honest synthesis: strong normative, sharp analytical, and empirically tested. Without it, Islamic economics could be caught between two equally problematic poles—too theoretical to be applied, or too adaptive to the point of losing its identity.

******